论文部分内容阅读
Predictably， the U.S. Republican Party（GOP） took back the Senate after eight years in a landslide victory during the mid-term congressional election in November. While the GOP is still in control of the House of Representatives， it also gained ground in state governor elections in Illinois， Maryland， Iowa and Colorado—the traditional spheres of influence of the Democrats.
A big loss
The loss for the Democratic Party was clearly a backlash against perceived failures of President Barack Obama’s administration. Despite making some achievements in reinvigorating the economy， creating jobs， advancing healthcare reform as well as ending the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past six years， the Obama administration has not been able to sustain a positive public image. The general public doesn’t sense the practical benefits that the “change” Obama advocated has brought to them.
In contrast to a 7-percent growth in percapita GDP， U.S. household income has fallen since Obama became president， according to the Economic Report of the President 2014. As a result， the GOP focused its campaign strategy on economic issues while avoiding sensitive social issues before the mid-term election.
The changing situation both inside and outside of the United States has further worsened the Democrats’ poll numbers. The Obama administration’s strategy in fighting Islamic State extremists in Iraq and Syria has been indecisive and poorly executed， lacking strong leadership to eradicate the threat of terrorism. In the face of the Ebola epidemic invasion into the United States， the Obama administration also gave the public an impression of poor preparedness. In addition， Obama’s embattled healthcare overhaul has also frustrated supporters.
Some Democratic candidates attempted to distance themselves from Obama during the election， such as Senate candidate Alison Grimes from Kentucky， who declared publicly that she does not support Obama’s policies. Even so， people expressed dissatisfaction toward the poor ruling performance of Obama and the Democrats in the national vote. Exit polls after the election showed that 59 percent of the voters were dissatisfied with the Obama administration， 60 percent of voters had an unfavorable opinion with GOP leaders， and more than half of voters were discontented with both parties.
Since the GOP took control of the House of Representatives in 2010， it has adopted a confrontational tactic against Obama， aiming to thwart his administration’s reforms in healthcare， taxation， education and immigration policy with utmost effort. After the mid-term election， the confrontation between the White House and Capitol Hill will be further intensified， making Obama a lame duck president. The GOP-dominated Congress will not only continue to hinder Obama’s policies， it may also forcefully pass through bills to ruin the past reform achievements of the Obama administration. However， the GOP cannot get the two thirds majority needed to override the president’s veto power.
In his first public speech after the mid-term election， Obama said， “Still， as president， I have a unique responsibility to try and make this town work.”
In the past year， Obama was more likely issuing executive orders to bypass the Congress or seeking support from lobbyists and other nongovernmental organizations to promote his policies. Soon after the Democrats lost the mid-term election， Obama reportedly ordered his staff to reset the agenda to seek new reform motivations in boosting employment and raising the minimum wage.
On November 20， Obama announced a set of executive actions that allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents， known as green card holders， to legally live and work in the country for a period of three years. The move will help roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants in the country avoid deportation. The measure is the latest move that Obama has used to bypass the Congress.
However， the order on immigration stirred much controversy， with outraged opponents accusing Obama of acting more like an emperor than the head of the world’s oldest democracy. Republicans in the House of Representatives even threatened to file a lawsuit and pledged a budget boycott. In 2013， though the immigration reform bill of the Obama administration was passed in the Democratic-controlled Senate， it was vetoed by the House of Representatives.
Preparing for 2016
In face of an uncooperative Congress， Obama is more concerned about how best to capitalize on his remaining two years in office—to leave his historical legacy. Overcoming the political impasse should， however， be the focus of discourse in the society. The end of history， a thesis put forward by Francis Fukuyama， lamented that the United States has entered an unprecedented institutional crisis in that Americans not only need strong leadership， but also need to reform the political structure and related laws， in order to reduce the use of the veto and simplify decision-making procedures. However， politicians have already turned their eyes to the 2016 presidential election instead of reflecting on the institutional system. The Republicans that triumphed in the mid-term election believe they have a great opportunity to regain the White House in just two years. In fact， the record of winning three consecutive presidential elections by the same political party has happened only once in the past sixty years. In 1988， the GOP candidate George Bush followed the Republican President Ronald Reagan， who had been in office for eight years， to become the 41st U.S. president.
The GOP’s problem is that the party has not found a powerful enough figure. There are a dozen potential candidates circulating within the U.S. politics and media， the most promising of whom is former governor of Florida， Jeb Bush， who is also the son of former President George Bush and brother of former President George W. Bush.
Other Republicans that have shown presidential ambitions include New Jersey Governor Christopher J. Christie， Texas Senator Ted Cruz， Kentucky Senator Rand Paul， Florida Senator Marco Rubio， as well as Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. After the GOP takes control of Capitol Hill， these potential presidential candidates will intensify their efforts to challenge for the White House. In addition， it also cannot be ruled out that Mitt Romney， the Republican presidential candidate in 2012， will make another run at the presidency.
Another problem for the GOP is its vague political message. The neoconservatism， ultra-conservatism and moderate-conservatism views within the party are conflicting with each other. It is very hard for the party to raise persuasive， attractive and integrative reformist platforms that can meet the current social demands of the United States. After the mid-term election， ultra-conservative Tea Party members proposed the GOP to focus on the abolition of Obama’s healthcare reform， while Republican congressional leaders disagreed.
But for the Democrats， the party is pinning its 2016 hopes on Hilary Clinton and pushing most of its resources to this former secretary of state. During the mid-term election campaign， Clinton traveled to 18 states to support the Democrats. The Washington Post claimed that with the GOP taking control of Capitol Hill， Clinton mustn’t invest more efforts on emphasizing her policy differences with Obama， noting that she is a real winner of the mid-term election. Clinton may announce her run for the 2016 presidential election at the end of this year or the beginning of 2015. The gradual deepening of the “political polarization” in the United States has taken the society far off the track of consultation and compromise. Almost every GOP member declares himself a conservative， while all Democrats identify as liberals， and they only vote along party lines. The moderate center—conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans—has collapsed.
In the 2016 presidential election， the candidate who can persuade voters that he or she is capable to do the job will win. Clinton， who showed her diligence serving as secretary of state in the Obama administration， was probably making early preparations for the presidential contest.
China policy
Generally speaking， U.S. presidents who lose support of the Congress achieve little on domestic issues in their remaining terms， and are likely to turn to foreign affairs. The Obama administration may choose to focus on negotiations on the Middle East peace process and the Iranian nuclear issue， mastering the situation concerning the U.S.-Russia confrontation， as well as steering the Pivot-to-Asia strategy—its most important diplomatic legacy.
Shortly after the mid-term election， Obama flew to Beijing to attend the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation Economic Leaders’ Meeting and paid a state visit to China from November 8 to 10. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping confirmed the consensus on building a new type of major-country relationship. Obama also reiterated that the United States welcomes China’s peaceful development and has no intention of containing China.
The Obama administration needs China’s cooperation on many international issues. Obviously， the Obama administration cannot separate the United States’ China policy from its Asia-Pacific strategy. On the contrary， the Obama administration will probably develop a stable and steady U.S.-China relationship rationally based on its own national interests. But the Sino-U.S. relationship is still full of risks and challenges in the next two years. Therefore， it will continue to test the wisdom and patience of the leaders of the two countries in how to deal with the unavoidable strategic contradictions between them.
A big loss
The loss for the Democratic Party was clearly a backlash against perceived failures of President Barack Obama’s administration. Despite making some achievements in reinvigorating the economy， creating jobs， advancing healthcare reform as well as ending the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past six years， the Obama administration has not been able to sustain a positive public image. The general public doesn’t sense the practical benefits that the “change” Obama advocated has brought to them.
In contrast to a 7-percent growth in percapita GDP， U.S. household income has fallen since Obama became president， according to the Economic Report of the President 2014. As a result， the GOP focused its campaign strategy on economic issues while avoiding sensitive social issues before the mid-term election.
The changing situation both inside and outside of the United States has further worsened the Democrats’ poll numbers. The Obama administration’s strategy in fighting Islamic State extremists in Iraq and Syria has been indecisive and poorly executed， lacking strong leadership to eradicate the threat of terrorism. In the face of the Ebola epidemic invasion into the United States， the Obama administration also gave the public an impression of poor preparedness. In addition， Obama’s embattled healthcare overhaul has also frustrated supporters.
Some Democratic candidates attempted to distance themselves from Obama during the election， such as Senate candidate Alison Grimes from Kentucky， who declared publicly that she does not support Obama’s policies. Even so， people expressed dissatisfaction toward the poor ruling performance of Obama and the Democrats in the national vote. Exit polls after the election showed that 59 percent of the voters were dissatisfied with the Obama administration， 60 percent of voters had an unfavorable opinion with GOP leaders， and more than half of voters were discontented with both parties.
Since the GOP took control of the House of Representatives in 2010， it has adopted a confrontational tactic against Obama， aiming to thwart his administration’s reforms in healthcare， taxation， education and immigration policy with utmost effort. After the mid-term election， the confrontation between the White House and Capitol Hill will be further intensified， making Obama a lame duck president. The GOP-dominated Congress will not only continue to hinder Obama’s policies， it may also forcefully pass through bills to ruin the past reform achievements of the Obama administration. However， the GOP cannot get the two thirds majority needed to override the president’s veto power.
In his first public speech after the mid-term election， Obama said， “Still， as president， I have a unique responsibility to try and make this town work.”
In the past year， Obama was more likely issuing executive orders to bypass the Congress or seeking support from lobbyists and other nongovernmental organizations to promote his policies. Soon after the Democrats lost the mid-term election， Obama reportedly ordered his staff to reset the agenda to seek new reform motivations in boosting employment and raising the minimum wage.
On November 20， Obama announced a set of executive actions that allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents， known as green card holders， to legally live and work in the country for a period of three years. The move will help roughly 5 million undocumented immigrants in the country avoid deportation. The measure is the latest move that Obama has used to bypass the Congress.
However， the order on immigration stirred much controversy， with outraged opponents accusing Obama of acting more like an emperor than the head of the world’s oldest democracy. Republicans in the House of Representatives even threatened to file a lawsuit and pledged a budget boycott. In 2013， though the immigration reform bill of the Obama administration was passed in the Democratic-controlled Senate， it was vetoed by the House of Representatives.
Preparing for 2016
In face of an uncooperative Congress， Obama is more concerned about how best to capitalize on his remaining two years in office—to leave his historical legacy. Overcoming the political impasse should， however， be the focus of discourse in the society. The end of history， a thesis put forward by Francis Fukuyama， lamented that the United States has entered an unprecedented institutional crisis in that Americans not only need strong leadership， but also need to reform the political structure and related laws， in order to reduce the use of the veto and simplify decision-making procedures. However， politicians have already turned their eyes to the 2016 presidential election instead of reflecting on the institutional system. The Republicans that triumphed in the mid-term election believe they have a great opportunity to regain the White House in just two years. In fact， the record of winning three consecutive presidential elections by the same political party has happened only once in the past sixty years. In 1988， the GOP candidate George Bush followed the Republican President Ronald Reagan， who had been in office for eight years， to become the 41st U.S. president.
The GOP’s problem is that the party has not found a powerful enough figure. There are a dozen potential candidates circulating within the U.S. politics and media， the most promising of whom is former governor of Florida， Jeb Bush， who is also the son of former President George Bush and brother of former President George W. Bush.
Other Republicans that have shown presidential ambitions include New Jersey Governor Christopher J. Christie， Texas Senator Ted Cruz， Kentucky Senator Rand Paul， Florida Senator Marco Rubio， as well as Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. After the GOP takes control of Capitol Hill， these potential presidential candidates will intensify their efforts to challenge for the White House. In addition， it also cannot be ruled out that Mitt Romney， the Republican presidential candidate in 2012， will make another run at the presidency.
Another problem for the GOP is its vague political message. The neoconservatism， ultra-conservatism and moderate-conservatism views within the party are conflicting with each other. It is very hard for the party to raise persuasive， attractive and integrative reformist platforms that can meet the current social demands of the United States. After the mid-term election， ultra-conservative Tea Party members proposed the GOP to focus on the abolition of Obama’s healthcare reform， while Republican congressional leaders disagreed.
But for the Democrats， the party is pinning its 2016 hopes on Hilary Clinton and pushing most of its resources to this former secretary of state. During the mid-term election campaign， Clinton traveled to 18 states to support the Democrats. The Washington Post claimed that with the GOP taking control of Capitol Hill， Clinton mustn’t invest more efforts on emphasizing her policy differences with Obama， noting that she is a real winner of the mid-term election. Clinton may announce her run for the 2016 presidential election at the end of this year or the beginning of 2015. The gradual deepening of the “political polarization” in the United States has taken the society far off the track of consultation and compromise. Almost every GOP member declares himself a conservative， while all Democrats identify as liberals， and they only vote along party lines. The moderate center—conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans—has collapsed.
In the 2016 presidential election， the candidate who can persuade voters that he or she is capable to do the job will win. Clinton， who showed her diligence serving as secretary of state in the Obama administration， was probably making early preparations for the presidential contest.
China policy
Generally speaking， U.S. presidents who lose support of the Congress achieve little on domestic issues in their remaining terms， and are likely to turn to foreign affairs. The Obama administration may choose to focus on negotiations on the Middle East peace process and the Iranian nuclear issue， mastering the situation concerning the U.S.-Russia confrontation， as well as steering the Pivot-to-Asia strategy—its most important diplomatic legacy.
Shortly after the mid-term election， Obama flew to Beijing to attend the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation Economic Leaders’ Meeting and paid a state visit to China from November 8 to 10. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping confirmed the consensus on building a new type of major-country relationship. Obama also reiterated that the United States welcomes China’s peaceful development and has no intention of containing China.
The Obama administration needs China’s cooperation on many international issues. Obviously， the Obama administration cannot separate the United States’ China policy from its Asia-Pacific strategy. On the contrary， the Obama administration will probably develop a stable and steady U.S.-China relationship rationally based on its own national interests. But the Sino-U.S. relationship is still full of risks and challenges in the next two years. Therefore， it will continue to test the wisdom and patience of the leaders of the two countries in how to deal with the unavoidable strategic contradictions between them.