THE LAST FRONTIER

About a month later, the Americans will once again answer a question that is important for the history of the country: who will be the next president of the United States? Will the conservative Republican and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney become the 45th US president or the current president and Nobel Peace Prize winner of 2009, Democrat Barack Obama, retain his title for another term?

It is noteworthy that the current election campaign is very similar to the situation of autumn 2000, when Republican George W. Bush who lost the election by the number of votes received beat the Democratic candidate Al Gore after the counting and recounting of votes and five weeks of legal proceedings. In any case, if a situation similar to the one that was 12 years ago develops again, the position of the incumbent President Barack Obama seems more preferable today, because, first of all, according to a survey by the sociological service Gallup, Barack Obama's approval rating, even if at a small rate, is growing. As our journal went to press, the policy of the current president was approve by 51 per cent and disapproved by 42 per cent of respondents. Although most experts believe that, given the static error, we can talk about equal sympathies for both candidates from voters.

The growth in the ranking of the incumbent president is largely attributed to the fact that the economic situation in the US is gradually improving. Desiring to build that trust, Obama recently raised a vital topic in his campaign aimed at attracting middle-class voters, saying that he would try to convince businesses to create jobs inside America and not to move them abroad. According to some analysts and political strategists, such accented support for the American labour market corresponds with the larger populist trend in the economic policy of the current president of the United States. At the same time, such tactics allow Barack Obama to win the support of union members. It is noteworthy that the last published report on the state of the labour market predicts a fall in unemployment to 8.5 per cent, i.e. to its lowest level in three years.

However, Romney and the Republicans sharply criticize the social and economic policies of Barack Obama. According to them, the measures taken by the White House to regulate the economy, in particular, the new rules for Wall Street and the reform of the health system are bad for investment. And steps to stimulate economic growth did not help reduce high unemployment. Romney, if elected, promises to look after the interests of the "middle class" to help small businesses, cut taxes, promote trade, take care of the rights of the population and its health, promote innovation and "put pressure on China". By the way, Romney, a graduate of Harvard Business and Law School, a businessman and politician, is a very wealthy man and head of the large investment company Bain Capital. He earned his reputation as a successful business person and leader well-versed in economics at the head of the Organizing Committee of the Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City in 2002 and as governor of Massachusetts in 2003-2007. At a meeting with wealthy sponsors, he complained that 47 per cent of Americans are "dependent on the government, see themselves as victims and expect the government to take care of them". For example, almost every other American hopes that the government will provide him with housing, medical care and food. And therefore, they are voting for Barack Obama, who is trying to impose "European-style socialism" in America. The Republican candidate made it clear that he does not count on these voters: "My job is not to worry about these people. I'll never be able to convince them that they should take responsibility for their lives ... These people do not pay taxes, so they do not care about our call for tax cuts." Representatives of the Obama campaign headquarters immediately announced that Romney was "dismissive of half of the nation".

Naturally, during the remaining period before the election, both candidates, using all resources, will try to increase the number of their supporters. At the same time, they will not miss the opportunity to use their opponent's mistakes to launch sensitive counterattacks. Therefore, the fragile balance between them may change. Of course, as president, Obama has a clear advantage over his opponent. At least the incumbent gets more media attention. On the other hand, Barack Obama, under whom the United States is already living, is better known and predictable than Romney, who is still a "dark horse". From this point of view, conservative voters may well gravitate to the incumbent president. Obama can credit himself with anything good or popular (health care reform, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, elimination of Ben Laden, etc.) that happened in the country during his time in office. But failures also boomerang against the chief official - the president. This allows Romney to endlessly and successfully criticize Obama. The opponent has already criticized the president for reforms in health care and at the same time, for abandoning it, for reducing social spending and at the same time, low taxes for the rich. In short, the Republicans accuse the president of inconsistency. But the Obama administration's foreign policy is subjected to the sharpest criticism from the Republicans.

Romney, who has declared Russia a geopolitical enemy of the United States, blames Barack Obama for the policy of "resetting" with Moscow. According to him, the initially erroneous step of rapprochement with Russia became a disaster after the election of Vladimir Putin. The Republicans regard the creation of the Eurasian Union by Moscow in the former Soviet Union and the loss of such an important American beachhead as Ukraine as a result of too soft a policy by Obama. Opponents also regard Obama's concessions on European missile defence as unjustified. Romney's camp believes that if under Dmitriy Medvedev, the liberal policy towards Moscow could somehow be justified, after the return of hard-line and uncompromising Putin to the Kremlin such "tenderness" is no longer in fashion. As the rationale, they point to the Russian Foreign Ministry's notification that the activities of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in the Russian Federation should be terminated from 1 October. Moscow explains its decision by the fact that the work of agency representatives in Russia went beyond promoting bilateral humanitarian cooperation. Through the distribution of grants, they tried to influence political developments, including elections at different levels and civil society institutions in Russia. This clearly suggests that the party of tough rhetoric with Washington is firmly established in the Kremlin again. Therefore, according to the neo-conservatives represented by Romney, now is the time for the "hawks" to take over the White House as they are able to carry out a similar hard line towards Moscow.

It should be noted that regardless of the Democratic or Republican government, the strategic goal of the White House is domination in relations with the Kremlin. That is to say in the geopolitical struggle between Moscow and Washington, the USA's victory must be provided regardless of the method and the tools of the struggle. If in the course of this struggle, the Democrats use "democratic values, human rights, freedom of speech and conscience" as weapons, the Republicans prefer a rigid military-political confrontation.

Another vulnerable issue for Barack Obama is the difficult situation in the Middle East and North Africa. At first sight, Washington seems to have been able to gain a tactical victory in the countries where the "Arab Spring" was skilfully initiated. But recently, it became clear that relations with the Muslim world are not in the best condition - this is clear from Muslim Brotherhood's rise to power in Egypt, the murder of the American ambassador to Libya and other circumstances. The inability to break Russia's resistance on the Syrian issue is also seen by the Republicans as a weakness of the Democratic administration of the White House in the area of foreign policy. What's more, against the background of all these difficulties, the White House recently seriously spoiled relations with its strategic ally - Israel. Although Tel-Aviv itself, which is increasingly demanding that Washington take military action against Iran, also "contributed" to this, according to the Republicans, the White House should not have taken such a tough tone in the dialogue with Israel. It is unlikely that the powerful Jewish lobby in the US is in awe of such a policy by the White House. In this context, it is not surprising that the world's richest Jew, according to Forbes, gaming tycoon and owner of the Israeli newspaper Israel HaYom, Sheldon Adelson, (with a fortune of $ 26.5 billion) invested $ 70 million in the Republican Party's campaign in 2012. Of this amount, $ 37 million were directly transferred to Romney. By the way, this is a new record in donations to political campaigns. Naturally, all these factors play into the hands of Romney. Furthermore, he actually leads the opposition in a rather difficult economic situation in the country, and without answering for anything, he has an excellent opportunity to criticize everything. It is precisely at the time of the crisis that voters may prefer, figuratively speaking, a "tough guy" i.e. Republican Mitt Romney. It is no accident that after the bloody events in Benghazi, Romney lashed out at the current administration for weakness in this matter.

Another trump card of Romney is the economic issue. He and his supporters offer a tax cut by another 20 per cent (the lowest level since 1931). In addition, Romney advocates for increased defence spending, reducing the share of the US budget deficit in GDP by 10 times, transfer of most social programmes to the private sector, or even to the field of charity. Unlike Obama, he does not hide that he does not claim universal love. At the same time, experts note the weaknesses of Romney's programme and image. First, it is the lack of social programmes, which most Americans may not like. Second, it is his excessive aggressiveness. Mitt Romney is often harmed by his expansiveness in terms, which, according to many experts, is a direct result of his emotional stiffness, and maybe even some professional incompetence. Third, it is the wealth of the multi-millionaire Romney amid rising poverty in the USA. Voters might think that the presidential candidate is far from the problems of the common man. Fourth, it is the lack of consistency. He changes his position on many issues too often and is guided by political considerations. Fifth, it is his religious views. Romney is a Mormon, i.e. a representative of the Church, which intervenes very actively (even by American standards) in the affairs of its members. He does not like to advertise this side of his life, but his opponents are trying to delude voters into thinking that if Romney wins, he may bring a whole team of fellow believers to the White House.

These are the current realities of the presidential race in the US. Both candidates already have a number of solid supporters. But there is a huge part of the electorate, which has not yet fully decided on their likes and dislikes. In this matter, presidential candidates themselves will try to help them, and in the course of three televised debates (3, 16 and 22 October), they will be demonstrating the highest political acrobatics to convince them to make a choice in their favour.