We are often told that the US PResident is the most powerful person in the world and, therefore, the identity of the postholder is of enormous importance. I wonder if this is really true.
The notion of 'power' is inevitably associated with military capability and, in particular, with possession of nuclear weapons. The US has both in abundance and probably has the world's most extensive security and intelligence operations; I would be far from surprised to discover that they have a file on me, for instance, even though I am not a US citizen, have never been in the US nor even tried to go there. I have, however, occasionally expressed my views on certain issues on the internet which may well have been sufficient to gain their interest. The US also has the world's largest economy by some distance and, on the face of it, the US President does, indeed, preside over a pretty powerful setup.
However, in reality, what actual power does the President have ? Obama has largely failed to implement policies which are dear to his heart due to opposition in the Senate, House of Representatives or both. The involvement of his country in overseas ventures, notably Afghanistan, has been a continuing disaster though admittedly not of his making. The US economy is continuing to struggle and is currently weighed down by a far greater burden of debt than it had when he came to office. US diplomacy has failed totally to achieve any solutions to the problems affecting Israel, Syria and Iran, while interventions in Egypt and Libya have produced highly uncertain outcomes.
While the President may have had to 'sign-off' on the overseas military campaigns, his ability to influence much of the rest seems to be very limited. Indeed, apart from committing military forces it is difficult to deterrmine exactly what a modern President can really achieve. Perhaps this is because Obama is a weak President or perhaps it is simply because of the nature of the United States today.
One has the feeling that the Presidents of a few decades ago genuinely wielded power. Roosevelt in the 1930s, Kennedy for a brief period and even Nixon until he was caught, but more recent incumbents seem to have been increasingly emasculated. Ford was generally seen as a joke, and Carter likewise, although both may have been rather better than theywere credited with being. Reagan stands out principally due to his charismatic presence and oratorical skills rather than for any great political ability, while Bush, senior, probably wasn't up to the job and his Presidency will be one of the forgotten ones. Once we reach the era of Clinton and 'George W', I truly begin to wonder who was in charge. Clinton was certainly a smooth operator while Bush minor was an imbecile, but both seem to have been backed by powerful organisational interests which pulled all of the strings.
Given the history, whether the winner of November's poll is Obama or Romney isn't what will matter. The important thing is who are their backers and what are their policies and desires ? Additionally, will the next President have enough control of the Senate and House of Representatives ? If Obama wins, we can expect more of the same; much rhetoric and little action leading into at least 2 years of a 'lame-duck' administration until the election of 2016. If Romney wins, things may change or they may not; he and his backers may find that their cherished policies are blocked by a hostile Congress and they have 4 years of stalemate while the economy continues to pile up debts.
Personally, I would never vote for anyone who has fought so hard and spent so much money in order to be 'top dog'. Anyone who is so desperate for power almost always turns out to be incompetent or worse, so I vote for the White House gardener who has no such ambitions but would do a better job simply because he would feel obliged to do his very best rather than worrying about satisfying his backers and winning a second term in 4 years time.
No comments:
Post a Comment