U.S. Election: Election Rhetoric vs. Political Reality

U.S. Election: Election Rhetoric vs. Political Reality
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 24, 2012

Summary: The United States' international and domestic predicament has remained the same since the September 11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, and the 2008 financial tsunami. No matter who becomes president, he will find it difficult to alter this political reality. Fourteen days remain until election day. One might say that voter expectations will determine the outcome of the presidential election. But it might be more accurate to say that voter feelings will determine the outcome of the presidential election.

Full Text below:

The final debate between the US presidential candidates ended yesterday. Only two weeks remain before election day. Polls show the two candidates tied at 47% to 47%. They are evenly matched. It is hard to tell who is ahead.

Twenty-two days ago Obama was well ahead in the polls. Nearly all election analysts assumed a Romney upset was impossible. But who knew Obama's performance during the first debate on October 2 would be so poor, and Romney's would be so assured? That debate set a record for the greatest disparity ever to emerge from a presidential debate. In 1961 Kennedy debated Nixon in the first televised presidential debate in history. It too resulted in the same kind of upset. Since then, Obama and Romney's election prospects have swung back and forth like a pendulum.

After the first debate, Obama became alarmed. During the second debate, he launched a strong counterattack. He constantly interrupted his opponent. He pointed his finger at his chest. He accused Romney of being wrong and dishonest. He just stopped short of calling his opponent a liar. The confrontation was rude and reeked with mutual contempt. It has been characterized as the least civilized presidential debate ever held. The second debate addressed economic issues. It was generally believed that rhetorically speaking, Obama would win.

Most foreign governments still hope and believe that Obama will be re-elected over Romney. After all, Obama has four years of experience. He is a known quanity. Obama seems more willing to allow emerging countries to share the world stage with the United States. Romney, on the other hand, apparently evinces an "America First, accept no substitutes" arrogance. Romney aides are mostly former Bush officials. They are the same neoconservatives who launched the war in Iraq. His Middle East policy grants Israel carte blanche. He will not hesitate to launch a preemptive war against Iran. In particular, Romney bristles with hostility toward Mainland China. His rhetoric has reached peaks unprecedented in previous presidential campaigns. If Romney takes office will he bring about dramatic changes in East Asia? This is why the international community was deeply concerned about the debate on diplomacy and national defense held on the evening of the 22nd.

During the final debate both sides found themselves in disarray. Obama was the incumbent president. Yet he acted like the challenger. He repeatedly accused Romney of "living in the past." He said Romney's security strategy was mired in the Cold War, in the 1980s, his social policy was mired in the 1950s, and his economic policy was mired in the 1920s. Obama's strategy was to portray Romney as a militant hawk. Romney countered, saying that attacks against him would not cover up the chaos caused by Obama's policy failures in the Middle East.

Romney has no practical governing experience. But his international policy rhetoric was passable. Romney comes from a Republican background. When dealing with security and defense issues, it is easy for him to win the trust of the American public. Americans are war weary. Romney did not need to underscore his hawkishness. Therefore, during the third debate he softened his rhetoric. In 1982 Carter debated Reagan. Once Reagan spoke before a national television audience, they no longer believed that Reagan would be so imprudent as to launch a nuclear war. Concerns about Reagan's ability to serve as commander in chief also evaporated. The third debate softened Romney's previously negative image. Obama ridiculed Romney's plans to expand the US Navy, saying Romney had no idea what era he was living in. Today's national defense no longer uses horses and bayonets, like World War I. Underestimating one's opponent could be counterproductive.

The final debate on the evening of the 22nd put Mainland China issues at the very end. But the two men did not deal with the issue of Mainland China's strength as well as they did during the previous two debates. Romney promised that on the first day after taking office he would classify Mainland China as a currency manipulator. But most experts believe that if elected, he would immediately find a reason to renege on his promise. Both men emphasized that the United States must ensure that Mainland China becomes a responsible world power. But they were reluctant to actually draw lines in the sand. The debate never touched upon important countries in Europe, or on Japan and India. The Middle East accounted for five-sixths of the time. Israel was mentioned dozens of times. Americans' international concerns are actually very populist and very narrow.

Let us review the results of the debate. Romney won the first debate. Obama the second. The third was a draw. But Obama scored more points. In the end however, the domestic economy, unemployment, and public hardship will determine the outcome of the election, not the international situation. The third debate will have little impact on the election. The three debates were rife with election rhetoric. On foreign policy, the candidates puffed themselves up feigning ruthlessness. On domestic policy, the candidates' policies created social divisions and confrontation. But the United States' international and domestic predicament has remained the same since the September 11 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, and the 2008 financial tsunami. No matter who becomes president, he will find it difficult to alter this political reality. Fourteen days remain until election day. One might say that voter expectations will determine the outcome of the presidential election. But it might be more accurate to say that voter feelings will determine the outcome of the presidential election.

美國大選：選舉語言反襯政治現實
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.10.24

最後一場辯論昨日收場，美國總統選舉進入最後兩周。最新的幾個民調顯示，四十七％對四十七％，兩人打成平手。可謂勢均力敵，難分軒輊。

二十二天前，歐巴馬民調遙遙領先，幾乎所有選情觀察家都認為羅姆尼翻盤無望。可是，沒料到十月二日的第一場辯論，歐巴馬表現極差，羅姆尼則中規中矩，那場辯論創下歷來總統辯論最懸殊的勝負差距，而史上亦只有一九六○年甘迺迪對尼克森的首次電視辯論造成了同樣扭轉乾坤的效應。此後，歐羅二人的選情即陷於麻花交纏。

歐巴馬警醒之後，在第二場辯論，他發動全場強勢攻擊，不斷打斷對方話頭，手指對方胸口，大聲說：「你錯了，你不誠實。」只剩下沒有罵對手是騙子了。這種針鋒相對、毫無禮節、相互藐視的情狀，被指為所有總統辯論會中，最不文明的一次。第二場辯論主題是經濟，一般認為言辭便給的歐巴馬勝出。

世界多數國家仍然希望並且相信歐巴馬連任機會大於羅姆尼，畢竟歐巴馬有四年經驗，大家熟悉。歐巴馬比較樂見新興國家與美國共享世界舞台，而羅姆尼仍然保持「美國第一，舉世無雙」的傲慢。且羅姆尼的國際幕僚多是當年環繞布希、發動伊拉克戰爭的新保守主義者；他的中東政策放任以色列，且作態不惜先發制人發動伊朗戰爭。尤其，羅姆尼對中國的麻辣敵意，達到歷屆總統競選語言的最高峰。羅姆尼上台是否帶來東亞劇烈變化？這是國際十分關切二十二日晚第三場以外交國防為主的辯論之原因。

最後一場辯論，雙方角色錯亂。歐巴馬身為現任總統，表現反而像是挑戰者，一上場就連珠炮似的攻擊羅姆尼「活在過去」，謂羅的安全戰略停留在一九八○年代冷戰時期，社會政策停留在一九五○年代，經濟政策則停留在一九二○年代。歐巴馬的策略是把羅姆尼描繪成黷武好戰的鷹派，羅姆尼則反擊：「攻擊我，並不能遮蓋你的政策造成中東混亂的失敗。」

對於一個沒有實際主政經驗的候選人，羅姆尼在國際政策論述上的表現算是及格了。羅姆尼的共和黨背景，在處理安全和國防問題上容易得到美國人民的信任；美國人心厭戰，羅不必突出鷹派色彩，因此在第三次辯論中反而顯得柔軟了一些。正如一九八○年卡特對雷根辯論，全國電視前觀眾親眼見到雷根言談，不再認為雷根會輕率發動核子大戰，雷根能否擔任三軍統帥的疑慮也就過了關。第三場辯論，減少了羅姆尼原先被醜化的形象；歐巴馬則嘲笑羅姆尼的擴建海軍主張，不知今夕何夕，今天的國防已經不再像一戰時期使用馬匹和刺刀了，這種輕視對手的態度可能產生反效果。

二十二日晚上的最後一場辯論，中國問題擺在結尾，但二人攻擊中國的強度皆不如前兩次辯論。雖然羅姆尼再度保證上台第一天就會把中國列為操縱貨幣國，但是幾乎所有專家相信，他一旦選上之後，馬上設法會找到理由吞回這句話。兩人都強調美國要爭取中國成為世界上負責任的大國，皆不敢把狠話講死。辯論中一字沒有提到歐洲、日本、印度等重要國家，中東卻占據了六分之五的時間，以色列提到幾十次，顯示美國人關心的國際視野其實很民粹，也很狹窄。

回顧辯論成績，羅姆尼第一場大勝，第二場歐巴馬小贏，第三場難分高下，也可能歐巴馬得分較多。可是，決定選舉的是國內經濟就業和民生疾苦，不在國際情勢，第三場辯論的影響很小。三場辯論會中，皆充斥著「選舉語言」，在對外政策上膨風耍狠，在對內政策上製造撕裂與矛盾；但是，美國的國際困境與內政難題，自九一一事件、侵略伊拉克及二○○八金融海嘯以來，其實是大勢已定，可以預見任何人作總統皆不易扭轉此種政治現實。未來十四天的競選，與其說選民對二人的不同期望將決定大選的勝負，不如說選民對二人的總體感覺將決定鹿死誰手。