Even so, there are reasons for optimism that the DPJ's softer and more nurturing policies are just what the economy needs.

The global slump provided a painful reminder of the dangers of Japan's export-oriented growth strategy. Output has fallen even faster than in other rich countries, leaving national income at roughly the same level as in the early 1990s.

After two decades of stumbling between recessions, policy makers need to convince their citizens to spend some of their vast cash savings, which are now equal to 1.5 times GDP. Making the Japanese feel more secure may be the best way of doing this.

There is plenty in the DPJ's platform that looks encouraging. If Japan's new government can enact election pledges, Japanese citizens would have fewer reasons to hoard cash.

Parents would benefit from a generous child allowance. High-school education would be made free and university scholarships more plentiful. For the elderly, there would be a minimum guaranteed pension of at least 70,000 yen (about $750) a month. The unemployed would get 100,000 yen (about $1,100) a month during job training.

There are two problems, however. The first is how to pay for this largess. The party's belief that its $180 billion social agenda can be financed by cutting wasteful spending has left some economists unconvinced. A good deal of the fat in the budget was cut out when Junichiro Koizumi was prime minister from 2001 to 2006.

Canceling public works may be easy. But reducing the cost of Japan's powerful civil service by 20 percent is a tall order -- especially when combined with a drive to strip senior mandarins of much of their influence.

Meanwhile the DPJ seems reluctant to privatize the government's giant postal savings and insurance businesses. An IPO could provide a large injection of cash without the need to trim costs or raise taxes.

If the Japanese feel the new social programs are unsustainable, they may be more reluctant to spend. With national debt at over 200 percent of GDP, a degree of skepticism would be natural.

The second economic headwind for the DPJ is even harder to overcome. Shrinking pay checks will make it difficult to tempt the Japanese into the shops. This year wages have been falling at their fastest pace on record -- 7.1 percent in the year to June.

Beyond the cyclical downturn, deeper demographic forces are at work. As highly paid baby boomers retire, they are being replaced by cheaper youths, according to Edward Lincoln, an economics professor at New York University. This is ratcheting down wages.

A decline in the working age population will also make economic growth more of an uphill struggle. Overall the number of Japanese citizens has been falling since 2005. This makes Japan an unlikely engine of global growth even if the DPJ gets everything right.

Promising as some of its policies are, Japan's new government will face strong headwinds. But it is good news both for Japan and the world that the country now has a leadership that seems inclined to put the interests of consumers before exporters.

Japan's famous mantra is that things don't change much or very quickly.  But I have a feeling that this approaching Lower House parliamentary election on August 30 just might prove that wrong.

But first some background.  Japan has been ruled essentially by one party since the end of World War II -- the Liberal Democrats (LDP).  That's longer than in any other liberal democracy, competing with other countries that have no other parties to choose from.

There are many theories as to why that happened.  Some might insist that risk-averse Japanese weren't ready to tamper with the status quo, when economic growth was running so smoothly between 1950 and 1990, and everyone was feeling prosperous.

But that theory breaks down when you realize that Japan is the only developed economy which actually SHRANK on average over the past twenty years.  If prosperity breeds contentment, two decades is enough time to voters make the elected feel their winter of discontent.

I believe there just hasn't been a viable opposition party until now.  The previous #2 party for most of the postwar era, the Socialists, were essentially a one-issue group, holding just enough seats to block any revisions to Japan's "Peace Constitution".  They succeeded.  Our peacetime constitution has never been amended.

But the Socialists imploded in 1995 when their leader made a Faustian bargain to take power briefly from the LDP.  Ineptitude and three decades of opposition politics soon tripped them up, and the LDP was back in power within a year.

Arising from the ashes, eventually, was the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which eventually convinced enough voters that it wasn't going to similarly implode.  It's only taken 15 years and a lot of horse trading (and some years holding the basically powerless Upper House) before it proved itself a viable second party.

It really proved itself earlier this July, when it ambushed the LDP in the Tokyo Government elections.  For the first time in 40 years, Japan's largest city has the opposition in control.   This is riding the wave of a shambolic LDP, with three disastrous (and unelected) prime ministers after the famously-charismatic Koizumi.  The current PM, Aso, is essentially an oblivious political Brahmin, who has made it clear that his only claim to power is his personal sense of entitlement.  Tellingly, he has refused to give up the LDP leadership even after the July ambush, and is driving his party into the ground.

It is now clear how deep the rot runs.  A near-majority of people in the LDP hold "inherited seats", meaning they are sons, daughters, or blood relatives of former Dietmembers -- some for several unbroken generations.  This degree of cosy entitlement has only encouraged more elitism, rot, and preservation of a status quo that is long run out of excuses for Japan's relative lack of prosperity.  The LDP are the party resisting change, and the only weapon they have left in their arsenal is that you can't trust the opposition party because it's never held the reins.  But that fear by circular logic isn't selling this time.

I think, as do most people, that we will have a change of government, with the DPJ taking power in September.  Will it change anything, however?

It just might.  The DPJ Manifesto (They were the party that started this earlier this decade.  How revolutionary!  Making your policies clear to the voter!) is already out and it's saying some pretty ambitious things.  Paying families sizable amounts to support their children.  Making schools up to junior high free.  Making our toll highways free.  Breaking the stranglehold the bureaucrats have over our policymaking levers.  And quite a bit more that is ambitious if not a bit vague.  (But that's quite normal.)  According to my backdoor channels, there's even the promise of the DPJ facing up to the task of dealing with Japan's decreasing population by broaching that taboo topic (until after the election) -- loosening up the borders to let more immigration happen!  That would mean EVERYTHING changes!

Many of these may turn out to be merely political promises, of course.  But they're still better than anything the LDP has come up with, and the DPJ is setting the agenda for this election.  Being in control of the debate is a good thing.  And it has had the intended effect.  Although a month is a long time in politics, I think at this time the attitude is, "Well, why not give the DPJ a try?  Can they really do all that worse than the LDP are doing now?"

I am an American-born naturalized citizen of Japan.  Have been for nearly a decade now.  I've voted in several elections.  This is the one I'm most looking forward to.

Across the Web, a plethora of voices are dissecting the campaign . In a BusinessWeek piece, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch makes his position clear, saying John McCain’s economic platform made better sense for business, and that business leaders could take away three lessons from the election: Have a clear, consistent vision; make few mistakes; and have friends in high places.

Over at the New York Times, an editorial concludes that Obama’s triumph was decisive because “he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens.” It also points out some of the challenges facing the president-elect: “Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance, including some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens — children of the working poor. Other Americans can barely pay for their insurance or are in danger of losing it along with their jobs. They must be protected.”

Across the Atlantic, interest in the election has also been high. British newspaper The Independent wonders whether Obama will be “a modern-day Franklin D Roosevelt, who pulled the US back up over the economic precipice, or will he be a disastrous copy of his predecessor, Herbert Hoover?”

And Edward Luce, writing for the Financial Times, says: “Faced with a mountain of domestic and global problems that would have taxed the leadership skills of America’s greatest presidents, Mr Obama will have to act swiftly to justify the faith his country’s voters have placed in him.”

In Asia, Kent Ewing says in the Asia Times Online that “it is once again cool to be an American living abroad,” giving voice to the anger many foreigners harbor against George W. Bush.

What’s your view? Beyond the history-making, President-elect Obama must still govern. Given the challenges of today, how will he do? Will he live up to expectations?

By Bernd Debusmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - What is a real American? As opposed to an unreal American, a fake American, an un-American American or an anti-American American.

The answer is in the eye of the beholder and his or her political orientation. The question, and variations of it, has been asked in several periods of U.S. history and has bubbled up again, one of a number of odd sideshows, in the closing stages of the campaign for the presidential election on Nov. 4.

Are real Americans a minority in this richly diverse country of 300 million? You might well come to that conclusion if you believe the definitions publicly provided by several Republicans, including Sarah Palin, the vice presidential candidate, and conservative radio and TV talk show hosts.

“We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit and these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation,” Palin told a campaign rally in North Carolina in mid-October.

John McCain, the Republican candidate, has also sung the praise of small town (real) America. “Western Pennsylvania … is the most patriotic, most God-loving part of America,” he said at a rally there.

A belief in God, judging from speeches by both McCain and his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, is an essential part of American-ness.

Robin Hayes, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, provided details on Americans who do not qualify as real. “Liberals hate real Americans that work, and accomplish, and achieve, and believe in God.” Both Palin and Hayes later “clarified” their remarks to say they had not actually meant to suggest the existence of pro- and anti-American parts of the country. Nevertheless, their words prompted a vivid debate in cyberspace and on talk radio.

REAL AMERICANS AND EUROPE

It quickly went beyond geography and into political beliefs. “Is it possible to be a real American and to be a socialist?” radio talk show host Chris Plante asked his listeners in the Washington area. “Can you still be a real American if you believe that the regimes that govern in Western Europe are a better way forward than the system that we have here?” Callers reassured him that no, that was not possible.

How much influence conservative talk radio has will be apparent on election day. The Rush Limbaugh Show alone claims 12 million daily listeners and other conservative talking heads, such as Sean Hannity, also pull in huge audiences. But listening to them, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that they are preaching to the converted and their shows function as big echo chambers.

As the real vs unreal Americans debate unfolded over a few days - teacup storms have been relatively short in this election — another Republican member of Congress, Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota, poured fuel on the argument. She suggested in a television interview that the U.S. media should “take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America.”

That conjured up the ghost of Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who was helped in his hunt for hidden communists in the 1950s by a congressional investigative body called the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Sorting the populace into good people and not-so-good (or downright bad and dangerous) people is nothing new in an election campaign - the not-so-good people are always those of the other party. Seen in historical context, today’s good vs bad rankings are tame, as are negative advertisements.

When John Quincy Adams ran for re-election in 1828, for example, he called his opponent Andrew Jackson a cannibal and a murderer and he had unkind words for Jackson’s followers. The charge didn’t help. Adams lost.

In the 2008 campaign, attempts to portray one set of Americans (those living in rural areas and small towns) as more American than their big-city compatriots run counter to demographics. Nostalgia for a country that no longer exists?

According to the 2000 census - the counts are taken every 10 years - America’s big cities and their suburbs are home to 192 million people. That compares with just under 60 million in rural areas overall and 30 million in towns of fewer than 50,000 people.

A community of 50,000 people is large in comparison with Wasilla, the Alaskan town that had 5,000 people when Sarah Palin became its mayor in 1996. It has since grown to close to 10,000 - still small enough to fit the latest definition of real America.

(You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com)

]]> http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/10/29/real-vs-unreal-americans/feed/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/10/23/in-us-elections-fear-of-muslims/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/10/23/in-us-elections-fear-of-muslims/#comments Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:14:21 +0000 Bernd Debusmann http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=3 (Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In the summer of 2006, a Gallup poll of more than 1,000 Americans found that one out of four favoured forcing Muslims in the United States, including U.S. citizens, to carry special identification. About a third said Muslims living in the U.S. sympathized with al Qaeda.

Almost a quarter said they wouldn’t want a Muslim as a neighbour. Republicans, the poll said, saw Muslims in a more negative light than Democrats and independents, and were more opposed to having Muslim neighbours. Fewer than half those polled thought U.S. Muslims were loyal to the United States.

A few months after the poll, callers to a Washington area radio talk show suggested branding Muslims with crescent-shaped tattoos and special stamps in their identity papers, the better to spot potential terrorists.

Polls are snapshots of attitudes, and attitudes can change. But incidents during the U.S. presidential election campaign, now in its final sprint towards November 4, show that fear and suspicion of Muslims persist undiminished and are being used as a political weapon.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell became the most prominent member of the U.S. establishment to highlight the problem when he broke with John McCain, the Republican candidate and a personal friend of decades, to endorse Barack Obama, target of a prolonged campaign by activists who portray him as a Muslim.

One of his reasons: “I’m troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the (Republican) party say,” he told a television interviewer this week. “And it is permitted to be said such things as ‘well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’ Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian.

“But the really right answer is, what if he is?” Powell continued.

“Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion ‘He (Obama) is a Muslim and might be associated with terrorists.’ This is not the way we should be doing it in America.”

It was the first time that a senior figure of the American establishment had countered suggestions that Obama adheres to Islam by saying “So What?”, a question that should not be surprising in a country of immigrants that prides itself of its diversity. But the association is so toxic that even Obama himself has never asked that question.

FEAR AND BIGOTRY
Obama routinely denies the false notion that he is Muslim and stresses his commitment to Christianity and his regular church attendance. The website Obama has set up to rebuff a wide range of rumours notes the fact that he was sworn into the Senate on his family bible. That he finds it necessary to spell this out speaks volumes about a climate of fear and bigotry.

And about Obama’s caution: the first Muslim to win a seat in the 435-member House of Representatives, Keith Ellison, caused a storm of cyberspace criticism when he carried a Koran to his 2007 swearing-in ceremony. The hubbub subsided when it emerged that the Koran he used was once owned by an American with impeccable credentials - Thomas Jefferson.

Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, was the only Muslim in the House until last March, when he was joined by Andre Carson, a fellow Democrat from Indianapolis. Estimates of the number of Muslims in the United States range from 1.8 to more than 5 million. (The U.S. Census Bureau does not cover religious affiliation).

As the long election campaign neared its end, an obscure New York-based non-profit group called the Clarion Fund provided a textbook example of how fear of Muslims can be used for political ends.

The fund paid 70 newspapers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia to deliver, as an advertising insert, 28 million copies of a documentary on radical Islam. These are all swing states where the Obama vs McCain fight is close.

The one-hour documentary, entitled Obsession - Radical Islam’s War against the West — was produced almost three years ago. It intersperses scenes of violence, including the September 11, 2001, attack on New York, with footage from Nazi rallies. The film found no traditional distributor and was first screened on college campuses last year, introduced by a right-wing activist, David Horowitz.

So why is the DVD mailed out now? Purely for educational purposes, according to a spokesman for the Clarion Fund. Nothing to do with fear-mongering.

The DVD’s sleeve, however, carries a slightly different message. “The threat of radical Islam is the most important issue facing us today. But it’s a topic that neither the presidential candidates nor the media are discussing openly. It’s our responsibility to ensure we can all make an informed vote in November.”

(You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com)

"These are uneasy times for America's Muslims, caught in a backwash from a presidential election campaign where the false notion that Barack Obama is Muslim has been seized on by some who link Islam with terrorism," writes Chicago religion writer Mike Conlon in "Sour note for American Muslims in election campaign."

"Incidents during the U.S. presidential election campaign, now in its final sprint towards November 4, show that fear and suspicion of Muslims persist undiminished and are being used as a political weapon," writes Washington columnist Bernd Debusmann in "In U.S. elections, fear of Muslims."

Click on the hyperlinked titles for the rest of the story.

Both of them cite former Secretary of State Colin Powell asking the real question that the other politicians, including Barack Obama, have been avoiding: "Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion 'He (Obama) is a Muslim and might be associated with terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."

Election campaigns can bring out some ugly emotions. Do you think this will calm down after Nov. 4? Or, especially if Obama wins, will the rumour campaign against Muslims continue?