As we enter the last six weeks of the US election, all eyes are on the two presidential candidates. Their performance from now until Nov. 4 will be crucial to determining the next president of the US. In this world of postmodern politics, however, no one knows what a good performance is.
Consider the excitement Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin created after her nomination. It was completely unexpected. No one had ever heard of Sarah Palin before. She has practically no record in politics, administration or even in the ranks of the Republican Party. She also has absolutely no experience in international politics, as evidenced by her “insight into Russia” stemming from her ability to “see” Russia from Alaska. She was the governor of Alaska, a state that claims no prominence in American politics. John McCain may have selected her on two counts: to steal the female voters that the Democrats seem to have lost with the defeat of Hilary Clinton, and to make up for McCain’s old age. Yet when political analysts (and, I am sure, many Republicans) heard the name Sarah Palin, it rang no bells.
But, to her credit, Palin did generate an unexpected excitement. As soon as she was put on stage, she played to the deepest fault line of American politics: populism versus elitism. She defined herself as a “hockey mom” and played to the sentiments of small town America. She pleaded ignorance and lack of experience in government and foreign policy, but ordinary Americans liked her sincerity and naiveté vis-à-vis hard political issues. She presented herself as an outsider to Washington, meaning that she has not been tainted by its dirty politics (without realizing its implications for her running mate John McCain, who is now a veteran Washington politician).
The Palin wind has dwindled over the last 10 days. Her attempt to pose with foreign leaders at the UN General Assembly has not boosted her image. Apparently, the Republicans wanted her to be seen, not heard. Even the card of a woman vice president is not likely to go too far. At the end of the day, American voters will make a decision on issues as much as on character.
All of these speak to an essential reality of American politics, a reality many outsiders miss. It is the big divide between populism and elitism in the US. Barack Obama is accused of being an elitist not because he comes from an upper class, aristocratic family or because he is a Columbia graduate (there are plenty of such success stories in the States) but because of the identity class to which he belongs. He speaks elegantly but, like many of his Democratic comrades, he speaks the language of the educated classes, university communities, radical liberals, internalists, globalists, etc. The Republicans can play the card of elitism against the Democrats any time they want because they have convinced their base of a cultural divide between the ordinary American people and the elite classes.
But this is ironic. While Republicans claim a stronger affinity with ordinary Americans because of the party’s openly conservative and religious identity, they can hardly hold their ground on the issues of economics and global politics. The Republican Party has always been against regulation in economic matters because government intervention hurts big business. It is no secret that big American capital supports the Republican candidates precisely because they see a strategic alliance with them. The current economic crisis still works to the benefit of big corporations. The US government, i.e., US taxpayers’ money, is always ready to rescue them. (Another irony for American politics: It is a Republican administration that is forced to intervene in American capitalism in the strongest way possible.)
The situation is no different in foreign policy. We have seen the extent of the Bush administration’s “public policy” effort. It was a face-saving operation even the Republicans themselves never be