My brother lived in the USA for 4 years. Here is his take on the current political situation:

[applegrove]

"These are difficult times. Needless to say, much of the difficulty --I think it is fair to say THE single major source -- is the previous Presidency's utter fiscal, for a start, irresponsibility. (Europe is a different matter: the currency union was not thought through seriously. As Samuel Johnson would say, "The triumph of hope over experience.".)


Yes, it is interesting that the highly-intelligent extremist, Pat Buchanan, has slightly mellowed. Is it age or, like the French Revolution, have the men beyond the pale a few cycles ago become today's moderates by simply standing pat while their party keeps sprinting further towards the edge (of apocalyptic, rightist bone-headedness)?


The only announced candidate that makes ANY semblance of sense is Huntsman...and that in no way proves he is better than Obama or even Presidential material. Daniels made it clear again this weekend he won't be joining the fray.


If you want to know why this is still Obama's election to lose -- despite the point that he botched the stimulus by making it M-SIZU when XL was called for, search the NYT for a recent guest editorial by Robert Putnam, author of the brilliantly insightful 'Bowling Alone' half a decade ago and not easily pigeon-holed as left or right. With his collaborator, since 2005/6 he's been closely tracking the attitudes & affiliations of a statistically representative sample of Americans. So he knows who (in terms of demographics and personal opinions) joined the Tea Party before they even did so. They are typically extremely: white, religious, and weary of blacks, immigrants & Hispanics -- in other words, American residents different than 'us'. We've all heard these claims before but he can substantiate them. More to the point, America's independent-registered voting middle is moving strongly against both the Tea Party and religion expressing itself in politics.


If Obama wakes up, and he does need to I confess, the 2010 elections might prove to be the last hurrah for the movement of religion-in-politics that got a soft start under Carter (whom Marcus Bachman and his "submissive" wife voted for in 1976) and grew exponentially under Reagan and since.
8 of the 9 dunces on stage in Ames a week ago (or, in one case, waiting in the SC wings) deny settled facts of science such as the mechanism of evolution. If someone raised the bar to flat-earthism, would they follow? It is, after all, also upsetting to the Abrahamic ego, equally well established and only 3 times older than 'Darwin's dangerous idea'!


All of them would refuse a deficit reduction package if even 10% of it came from tax hikes and loop-hole closures.


This is far more 'out there' than the Dems. at their peak extremism under McGovern in 1972. Yes, the sweeps won't be quite as bad before the GOP expunges its 'Southern Strategy' as it was for McGovern & Mondale because there are 5 arch-Republican, low-population states west of the Mississippi and the same number of medium-population states in the Old South that will probably yield any GOP dunce 100 college votes (although Georgia & Tennessee might wake up if things get TOO stupid).
I'm talking here post-Obama. He's done much good but under-fed the stimulus by 50% and was naïve enough to try bi-partisanship in D.C. instead of merely talking it up like 'W.' in 2000.
Depending on the GOP nominee, he'll only get 290-360 votes in 2012 -- again, assuming he gets off the 'shroomz' and apprises reality.


Interesting though to see that the bête noire of the Republicans in 20 years ago now seems more reasonable than 8 of the 9 candidates (88%)...."

[pipoman]

1. I have lived here over 40 years

and the root of the "difficult times" is, as Buchanan has said for years (the only thing he has been right about), "free trade". Duty free trade with nations who have no intention of improving working conditions, standard of living, environmental regulation, or infrastructure. These 'deals' have and are supported by both parties. I would expect this from the thugs, I have hoped for better from the 'labor party', which is now dead.

[iamthebandfanman]

2. yep, while fair trade is a great concept

its just not practical in the world we live in.
as long as tyrants run countrys we have these agreements with, our workers will always get the short end of the stick.

fair trade just isnt possible without a level playing field of pay and rights to all workers... which is sadly not a very easy task :(

[applegrove]

3. Countries that don't trade end up poor. Look at Argentina in the 20th Century. They were the same

size and endowment of Canada and they just withered away because they didn't trade. We need to trade. The question is tariffs. And also that when oil hits $200 a barrel nobody will be buying civil (consumer)goods anywhere in the world because they will be too costly to transport. America doesn't want to be in a lot manufacturing when that happens. It wants to be in technology (you can license technology), nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals, finance (why the banks were not left to fail), software and other fields where oil is not used to get the product to market (like manufacturing for a local market). I don't know when this oil crisis will be but it is coming.

[pipoman]

4. I have never suggested we should not trade,

we shouldn't allow unfettered access to our market by nations which are not willing to bring their working class to our standard rather than bringing our working class to their level. And I completely disagree that the US doesn't want manufacturing when that happens. We absolutely don't want all of the manufacturing half around the world. We need to be able to manufacture close to consumers. Further not every person in the US is capable of employment in these high technology fields...exactly the argument I had with Bill Clinton who spouted this same line in his now infamous 'why NAFTA and GATT are good' campaign. Trade agreements with 3rd world countries and dictatorships have destroyed the economy of the US.