Galery

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

Greek media reported on the elections in the United States with particular interest. Electronic editions followed in detail the election results in various states before announcing the victory of Barack Obama.

It is the hot news along with the critical vote on the new austerity measures, which is expected at the Greek parliament tonight. The majority of analysts welcome the choice of American voters because they believe that Barack Obama’s remaining at the helm of the United States is more positive than if it had passed into the hands of Republican Mitt Romney.

Similar is the opinion of leading Greek politicians, who express it on the Twitter social network. New Democracy deputy Kyriakos Mitsotakis determines the vote in favour of Obama as a "positive development for Greece" and argues, "For Romney was very hostile to Greece, while Obama has been pressing Europe to be bolder."

The leader of Independent Greeks Panos Kamenos explains why he is glad over the victory of the candidate of the Democratic Party by the following "twit": "Obama's victory is a blow to Merkel and her policy of austerity, and hope for Greece and the cancellation of the usury debt".

Throughout the election period, Greece had been showing particular interest in the election result in the United States. The phrase, which the Republican candidate Mitt Romney repeated several times during the campaign, "the United States should not go the same way as Greece" had tipped the scales of preferences towards the present occupant of the White House, Barack Obama.

The presence of representatives of the Greek diaspora in the new Congress is considered equally important. According to the election results, the Americans of Greek descent, John Sarbanis (a Democrat from Maryland) and Gus Bilirakis (a Republican from Florida) have been re-elected members of the House of Representatives.

Niki Tsongas (a Democrat from Massachusetts) has also renewed her mandate. She is the widow of former senator and participant in the race for the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in 1992, Paul Tsongas.

The representative of New Jersey, Robert Menendez, who is a strong supporter of Greece, has also secured his seat in the Senate.

The representative of the Democratic Party of Nevada, Shelley Berkley, who is of Greek-Jewish descent from Thessaloniki, is also fighting for a seat in the Senate. If she fails, there will be no senator of Greek origin in the new composition of the particular chamber after the decision of the Republican Olympia Snow not to participate in yesterday's elections.

The number of votes received by Nevada’s Democrat Dina Titus, who is fighting for a seat in the House of Representatives, is not yet clear. John Arvanitis (a Democrat from New Jersey) and James Kargas, a Democrat from Texas, remain outside the Congress.

The representative of the Democratic Party of New York Carolyn Malloy, who is also a vice-chairwoman of the "Hellenic Association," has also renewed her term in the House of Representatives.

The election of the Democrat Mihalis Yennaris in the local Senate in New York is expected as well as that of the Democrat Arabella Simota and the Republican Nicole Malliotakis in the local parliament.

GRReporter turned for comment on the issue to one of the foreign policy experts in Greece - honorary professor at the University of Athens Theodore Couloumbis. He is the vice-president of the Foundation for European and Foreign Policy and has been dealing in recent years with conflict resolution at international level. In an interview for GRReporter, he expressed his personal opinion about the elections in the United States and their importance to the world.

Mr. Couloumbis, why did Mitt Romney lose?

First, I would like to point out that Mitt Romney lost by a narrow margin. One of the main reasons was that the so-called minorities in the United States - African Americans, Latin Americans, and to a lesser extent Asian Americans, voted en masse for Obama. And so did the majority of the female population, especially unmarried women. Moreover, the unacceptable geographical stratification of "blue", i.e. supporters of the Democratic Party and "red" - supporters of the Republican Party of America is still valid in the United States. The northern part of the country is "blue" and the southern part with the exception of New Mexico is "red". This is determined by historical and other reasons, but the fact is that people in the north and along the east coast are more "progressive," whereas they are conservative in the south. This division was pretty evident in the last few election races.

The most important factor for the preferences of the Americans was the economy. Their vote was predetermined by the so-called "pocket nerve". The poorest and the most marginalized people of the country voted for Obama because he believes in a system that protects the poor and the uninsured. The most important role in this respect was played by the establishment of a national health system called "Obama care", without which 50 million uninsured Americans would not be able to have access to health services.

I would like to emphasize that international policy did not affect particularly the election result in this case. It was clear from the election debates. Although what the United States does or does not do in the foreign policy affects the future of the planet, the Americans did not vote on the basis of this criterion. So, we see that the majority of European countries, including Greece and Bulgaria and others like Russia, China, etc. have preferred Obama and an America that will not conduct unilateral interventions in the international status quo, which means an America that will not be like the America it was during the mandates of George Bush Junior. He dragged the United States into two gruelling, bloody, dangerous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that were very costly to the pocket of Americans as well. The people who voted for this reason believe that Obama is pulling the United States out of these two wars and the probability of him starting a new one in the Middle East, i.e. Iran, is small.

What was the reason for the fact that the Republicans lost for the second time, irrespective of the candidate?

This happens in elections. The candidate who has been president is usually re-elected. The case of Jimmy Carter, who lost the elections in 1976 and thus, his second consecutive term, is rather an exception. After the eight years of George Bush Junior, the eight years of the Democrat Obama follow. I think that the Republican candidate will win the next election in 2016.

Does this mean that even if the Republican Party had proposed a candidate of more charismatic personality he would not be able to win?

Elections in the United States are actually won by candidates who represent the centrist space. Therefore, there is consistency in both domestic and foreign policies, regardless of which party is in power. As we saw, Romney chose for a candidate for vice president a young and very charismatic person - Paul Ryan. But I think that if he was a candidate for the presidency he would have lost with an even wider margin. This is because if the candidate does not represent at least part of the centrist space he cannot win. This happened during many other election races - Barry Goldwater on the one hand, who had lost very early, and George McGovern, on the other. He was accused of leftist views too strong for the American perceptions. So, I think that the result of Romney is not so poor for the Republicans.

Which party do you think expresses the economically and politically conservative people in the United States?

I think it is more the Republican Party. But if you look at the financing of the two candidates, Obama’s was much greater than that of Romney. So, the theory that there are circles, bankers, Zionists and conspiracy stories in general cannot convince me for such a complex and pluralistic country.

The question was related to the circle of people who had supported the election of George Bush Junior, who, however, disappeared after the emergence of the "Tea Party."

Yes, they were the so-called Neoliberals. The "Tea Party" is about an America that deals with its own affairs. While Neoliberals, like Paul Wolfowitz, almost entirely influenced the foreign policy of the United States. It was a policy of unilateralism, whereby America in its full capacity should dominate over the world, decide alone and use military force to introduce the American interests. This mentality lost in the United States after the two tragic wars I previously mentioned. This is a kind of a new "Vietnam syndrome," if you will, that is affecting and will be affecting the country even more. The call is, "Enough already. We can do it ourselves." An increasing number of people say that America should cooperate with other members of the G20, avoid war, limit the effects of climate change and avoid a nuclear war that would eventually destroy humanity. This is about globalization in the most positive sense. It is about a "global village" in which you cannot be alone. And I am especially glad that both Greece and Bulgaria are members of a union of democratic states - the European Union.