Elections 2004

Having had a historic election just two days ago, let me start with a comment on the American elections. The result was surprising for me, too, even though it was predicted months in advance by all the authoritative American politics professors across the country. The most recent edition of the American Political Science Review, the flagship of Political Science scholarship in the country, included the predictions of 7 prominent American politics professors, 6 of which predicted in uneqivocal terms a victory for George W. Bush, and only 1 professor predicted a tie (not a victory for Kerry, but a tie). There were other omens: All the Democratic nominees who have succesfully won their bid to presidency since Harry Truman came from Southern states (Truman, Johnson, Carter, Clinton). Hence, many favored the nomination of either Wesley Clark or John Edwards for presidency, rather than an aristocrat senator from Massachussets that is Mr. Kerry. However, once nominated, and nominated for the very reason of being "electable", a popular following, inlcuding myself, was mobilized behind Kerry. The election results suggest that an even more populous following was mobilized against. And I digress. Here are a few quick observations:
1) Not surprisingly, the "cultural divide" and not the "economic divide" determined the result of American elections. The relatively poor center, from Idaho to South Carolina, from Montana to Louisiana, voted for a Right wing economic policy based on a regressive tax code aggressively pursued by the President Bush. The relatively wealthy, "elite" coastal states in the West (California, Oregon, Washington) and in the Northeast (New York, Vermont, etc.) voted for the Democrats, who want to tax them more and redistribute their wealth to the disadvantaged. This is not unique to the United States. Including in my native Turkey, in several other countries, the Left has alienated the relatively poorer masses with its elitist discourse and condescending demeanor, whereas Right wing politicians smile and hug and socialize better with the poorer and always more numerous masses.
2) The cosmopolitan bourgeoisie of New York-California is defeated once again by the more traditional and rural bourgeoisie of Texas, Wyoming, and the like. Marx would say that the forces of reaction have won. The prediction would be that they will stiffen technological and hence economic development, eventually leading to a gradual decline in American power. Science, technology, and wealth will find another host; maybe East Asia, maybe Europe. And hence capitalism will be re-centered in Tokyo-Beijing and/or in London-Frankfurt. We'll see. Some portions of the Republican agenda, such as slowing down stem cell research and hatred for the theory of evolution, indeed signal an anti-scientific attitude that may be detrimental for the status of the United States, and favor other countries in the technology race. But if Wyoming is not welcoming of scientific research, California is and will be. The federal structure and sheer greatness of the United States insures that there will always be scientific niches with lots of money where research & development may continue, despite an anti-scientific tide nationwide.
3) Will George Soros and Warren Buffet will pack up and migrate to London or Frankfurt? Unlikely but possible at a smaller scale. Will the U.S. be more and more dependent on Japan adn China for financing its deficit? Most likely. Will the U.S. budget structure increasingly resemble that of a Third World country where the majority of the population is paying taxes that simply pay the interest rates of a few rich foreigners? Most likely. This is what I think of as the anti-Robin Hood redistribution, where you take from the poor and give it to the rich via allocating a most lucrative share of the budget for servicing debt. What can I say to the American people? Welcome to the Third World; you will be the first nation that made a conscious decision to join!