The Hindu Business Line : The issues and the contestants

With the US Presidential race currently reduced to three candidates, ALOK RAY outlines the major differences between these contenders for the most powerful political office in the world.

Senator John McCain is now confirmed as the Republican candidate for the US Presidency. But, on the Democratic Party side, the race between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama is still far from over. So, the US Presidential race is currently reduced to three candidates.

What are the major differences between these three contenders for the most powerful political office in the world?

First, the national security and foreign policy issues including the ongoing Iraq war. Senator McCain, a war hero from Vietnam days (he was held as POW for more than five years), holds the most hawkish position. He has been a strong supporter of Iraq war and the recent infusion of more American troops into Iraq. McCain is arguing that his favoured policy of introducing more American soldiers into Iraq has started to yield positive results, which shows his better judgment on military and security strategies. If necessary, he would not hesitate to keep the US forces in Iraq for “the next 100 years” (like in Japan, Korea or Kuwait).

Changed stance

Clinton supported the Iraq war in the beginning which she claims was based on the information that was generally available at that time — in particular that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (which later proved to be wrong). But now that Clinton knows better, she is no longer supporting the war. She has promised to start troop withdrawal within 60 days of coming to power.

Obama had opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning. In his judgment, Saddam Hussein was not the primary enemy of the US. Moreover, the war in Iraq would divert troops and attention from Afghanistan, which was the base of operation of Taliban and Osama bin Laden — the architects of 9/11 attacks. He also wants to wind up the war in Iraq very quickly and devote more attention to the war in Afghanistan against the Talibans and al Qaeda.

Unlike McCain (Clinton is a bit ambivalent here) Obama is in favour of dialogues — without preconditions — with Iran and North Korea. He believes that diplomacy and dialogue with enemies is more important for conflict resolution than only consulting friends.

Both McCain and Clinton claim that they have more experience in handling national security emergencies in today’s volatile world than the inexperienced and naïve Obama. Clinton’s basic selling point is that she would be ready as President and Commander-in-Chief from Day 1 in the White House, presumably because she was in the White House as First Lady for eight years and has seen foreign policy making from close quarters. Obama, in possibly the best quote of the season, has retorted that “it is more important to be right than be ready on Day 1”, alluding to Clinton’s wrong judgment in supporting the Iraq War. McCain’s claim to more experience on national security matters presumably comes from being an active soldier and a POW during the Vietnam War. But questions remain whether that experience is of any relevance for making foreign policy decisions.

‘Number one’ issue

Since the US economy is now in trouble and there has not been any terrorist attack within the US after the 9/11, the economy has become the number one issue for the majority of voters — not the Iraq War or al Qaeda. McCain, though initially did not support Bush’s tax cut (which benefited the richer people more) while fighting a war, has now started to support the idea of making the tax cuts permanent. One problem with McCain’s candidacy is that many Republicans do not think that McCain is conservative enough — except on national security matters.

In fact, McCain has publicly announced that he is against farm subsidies which benefit mostly rich farmers in the US. He has nothing against gay marriage or abortion. He is concerned, like Obama and Clinton, about global warming. So, now McCain is trying very hard to prove that he is a conservative Republican who believes in a small government with lower taxes and less government expenditure. Both Obama and Clinton are in favour of rolling back the Bush tax cuts and using the resulting higher tax revenue for the benefit of the relatively poor people — like subsidising health insurance and college education.

Health care has become a very important concern in this Presidential election. Nearly 47 million people are without any health insurance in the richest country of the world. Employer-provided (rather than provided by the state or the individuals) medical cover is putting many US companies (like General Motors) in serious cost-disadvantage relative to competing foreign companies (such as Toyota). So, all candidates have come up with their versions of health care proposals.

McCain, in conservative tradition, is in favour of individuals being given the choice between alternative health insurance covers provided by private insurance companies. But he has not spelt out whether the government will provide any subsidy to poor families who cannot afford to buy private insurance. Clinton is for a mandatory universal health insurance scheme. She believes that the cost of the premium can be made affordable even for the poor families. Obama is against mandatory health insurance. He thinks that many poor families simply cannot afford to buy insurance — so simply making it mandatory is not going to work.

Illegal entry

Immigration — specially illegal immigration from Mexico — is another big electoral issue. More than 10 million illegal immigrants are already within the US. All the candidates basically hold the same position here. They are against illegal immigration and would like to prevent it by strengthening border security. But they are in favour of legalising the already existing illegal immigrants after they pay fines for breaking the law, learn English and stand at the end of the queue to legalise their status. The truth is that no politician wants to antagonise the huge vote-bank of the Latino population.

On the issue of outsourcing of jobs to other countries (read Mexico, India and China), all candidates talk about not giving any tax concessions to the US companies exporting jobs. However, this is mostly rhetoric without any real substance. US companies do not get any tax advantage (they only save on costs) by offshoring their operations to lower-cost countries. Obama in recent days has started to talk against NAFTA (as it makes it more profitable for the US companies to shift factories to lower-cost Mexico than in the US), to woo blue-collar workers.

On H-1 B visas for high skill temporary workers (which is a major concern for many Indian IT companies and their workers), no candidate has so far made any statement.

‘Hope vs experience’

Finally, the difference in personalities and backgrounds. ‘Hope versus experience’ has become a recurring theme in this contest. Obama is half black, his father was an African (Kenyan) Muslim and mother a white American Christian (though both were secular minded). His father had left him when he was two years old. He had two years of education in an Indonesian, predominantly Muslim, public school and another two years in a Christian Missionary school. Then he was raised by his mother and grandmother in the US. He has admitted taking drugs during his teen years.

Obama got a law degree with high distinction from Harvard and became a civil liberties lawyer in Chicago. Next, he became a state senator, then a US Senator and finally a candidate for US President. He is an inspiring orator. That he has come this far from such a background is his greatest strength and lends substance to his message that hope can achieve a lot.

Further, by a clever twist of logic, he is arguing that more experience of his competitors is not an asset. It only means more exposure to Washington style politics of lobbying. His less experience implies that he can have a clean break with the past. This message is catching on with an increasing number of voters.

Though initially his support base was mostly within the black, the young and the college educated liberals, opinion polls indicate that he is steadily gaining ground even among the blue-collar workers and women voters who were considered solid vote-banks of Hillary Clinton.

If US needs to project a vastly different image in the post-9/11 world, it is nearly impossible to think of a better Presidential candidate than the 47-year-old Barack Hussein Obama.

(The author, a former Professor of Economics at IIM Calcutta, is currently a Visiting Professor of Economics at University of Pittsburgh, USA. His e-mail: alokray15@yahoo.com)