Next President

Every four years the old saying among progressives is repeated: "we have to select between the bad and the worse again!" This is true, because candidates are screened by a small group (whose support is essential for a candidate but they are not for ordinary people) before they enter the last round, which is the competition between bad and worse.

The process is different depending on the political system. In a dictatorship, either there is no election (Saudi Arabia and most of the countries in the area), or candidates are screened by a group (Iran), or there is a leader who selects the final winner (again Iran), or a free election process is non-existent (the rest of the Middle East and Africa). Of course, the only dictator who can stay in power is the one supported by the US and European allies, or they will have the destiny of Noriega, Taliban, Saddam, Khadafy, or the most recent one, Assad (which is a separate subject about US policy). In the US and some European countries, candidates are screened before they can become a credible candidate, not by a certain officially recognized group, but by a system lead by powerful executives and corporate owners or lobbyists (that, again, is a separate subject about the US elections). There are only two parties, with little differences considering their loyalties to capital, whose participation in election is supported by the system. A large number of people who realize that their voices are not heard, have lost their faith in the election process altogether.

According to a text book written for junior high school students (The American People Creating A Nation and A society; by Gary B. Nash and Julie Roy Jeffrey ... published by Vango Books copyright 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc.) voter participation was at its highest in 1876 at 81.8%, that decreased to 55.0% in 1992, 48.8% in 1996, and up to 51.0% in the year 2000. Therefore, almost half of the voting age Americans do not participate in elections. According to Wikipedia, voter turnout in 2004 was increased to 56.7%. It is interesting to learn that in 2008 voter turnout was 63%. Obama obviously attracted some of the people who had previously given up to vote, by spending over $10 per vote (which is another issue in the US voting process). Would this trend continue in 2012?

The main reason for Obama attracting new voters was his message of change, in addition to his genetic background which attracted many of the disenfranchised who had lost any hope in voting process (which far exceeded those who did not vote for him for the same reason). The policy of the past four years showed that he was not able to deliver what he promised, and obviously he had been screened before assuming his post. Considering Obama's competition in 2012 (Mitt Romney), there is a considerable prospect that Obama will be elected again. He is already screened, and although Wall Street's financial might is behind Romney, he may gain back some of those voters again, with new promises. If elected, it is up to him this time to make the change he has been promising (narrowing the widening gaps between the rich and the poor) and level out some of the financial disparities and heal certain ills of the society such as homelessness, lack of health and jobs, erosion of citizen rights, and lowered standard of living. This will be achieved by his continuation of expanding his hegemony and military adventures outside of the US boundaries, or without it. He may also decide to continue his policies of the last four years in order to satisfy the system, controled by the 1%. Of course, will of the people in participating in political process and pushing any president (or any elected official for that matter) to think of the majority, and especially the neglected, is always the first requirement for any change in the system.