President Obama Four more years?

[Van!]

http://www.economist.com/node/21561890?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

President Obama Four more years?

Sep 1st 2012, Economist

[1] IN DENVER four years ago, an inspiring presidential candidate announced that he would change America. Barack Obama promised to put aside partisan differences, restore hope to those without jobs, begin the process of saving the planet from global warming, and make America proud again.

[2] Next week Mr. Obama will address his fellow Democrats at their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, with little of this hopeful agenda completed. Three million more Americans are out of work than four years ago, and the national debt is $5 trillion bigger. Partisan gridlock is worse than ever: health-care reform, a genuinely impressive achievement, has become a prime source of rancor/anger. Business folk are split over whether he dislikes capitalism or is merely indifferent to it. His global-warming efforts have evaporated. America’s standing in the Muslim world is no higher than it was under George W. Bush, Iran remains dangerous, Russia and China are still prickly/thorny despite the promised resets, and the prison in Guantánamo remains open.

[3] The defense of Mr. Obama’s record comes down to one phrase: it could all have been a lot worse. He inherited an economy in free fall thanks to the banking crash and the fiscal profligacy/wastefulness that occurred under his predecessor; his stimulus measures and his saving of Detroit carmakers helped avert a second Depression; overall, he deserves decent if patchy grades on the economy (see article (http://www.economist.com/node/21561909) ). Confronted by obstructionist Republicans in Congress, he did well to get anything through at all. Abroad he has sensibly recalibrated American foreign policy. And there have been individual triumphs, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden.

[4] But this does not amount to/equal/mean a compelling case for re-election, in the view of either this paper or the American people. More than 60% of voters believe their country to be on the wrong track. Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are well under 50%; almost two-thirds of voters are unimpressed (however harshly) by how he has handled the economy. Worn down by the difficulties of office, the great reformer has become a cautious man, surrounded by an insular/narrow-minded group of advisers. The candidate who promised bold solutions to the country’s gravest problems turned into the president who failed even to back his own commission’s plans for cutting the deficit.

[5]Were he facing a more charismatic candidate than Mitt Romney or a less extremist bunch than the Republicans, Mr. Obama would already be staring at defeat. The fact that the president has had to “go negative” so early and so relentlessly shows how badly he needs the election to be about Mr. Romney’s weaknesses rather than his own achievements. A man who four years ago epitomized hope will arrive in Charlotte with a campaign that thus far has been about invoking fear.

[6] Mr. Obama must offer more than this, for three reasons. First, a negative campaign may well fail. The Republicans are a rum bunch with a wooden leader; but Mr. Romney’s record as an executive and governor is impressive, and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, is a fount/source of bold ideas. Mr. Obama’s strategy of blaming everything on Republican obstructionism will strike many voters as demeaning/degrading.

[7] Second, even if negative campaigning works, a re-elected Mr. Obama will need the strength that comes from a convincing agenda. Otherwise the Republicans, who will control the House and possibly the Senate too, will make mincemeat of/defeat completely him. And, third, it is not just Mr. Obama who needs a plan. America does too. Its finances and its government require a drastic overhaul. Surely this charismatic, thoughtful man has more ideas about what must be done than he has so far let on?

[8] A tempting option will be to galvanize his party base, with talk of more health reform and threats of higher taxes on business and the rich. Rather than redesigning government, he could suck up to the public-sector unions by promising that jobs will not be cut. Rather than cutting entitlement programmes, he could reassure the elderly that America can actually afford them.

[9] Such an approach would fit the pattern of too much of his presidency, and his campaign so far; but it would do America a disservice/harm, and it might not help Mr. Obama either. His victory in 2008 relied on reaching beyond the groups that traditionally vote Democratic and bringing in young voters and wealthier whites. Many of them are centrists who are suspicious of Mr. Romney, but since they have to foot the bill for /pay for government profligacy, they will not vote for a president who promises more of the same.

Reach for the radical centre

[10] Appealing to the centre is not easy for Mr. Obama. His allies on the left are powerful and, in a country so polarised, the middle ground can be a dangerous place. But there are plenty of things that many on both sides of the political aisle could agree on, including tax and immigration reform, investment in schools and aid to businesses that are creating jobs. Crucially, Mr. Obama could explain how he intends to cut the still-soaring debt without pretending that taxing only the rich will help in any meaningful way.

[11] Mr. Obama has a strong belief in social justice. It drove his health-care reform. But he needs to distinguish between a creditable desire to help the weak and a dangerous preference for the public over the private sector. The jobs that poor Americans need will be created by companies. Smothering firms in red tape is not the way to help them; Mr. Obama should vow to stop adding to it, and to start cutting some of it away. The party faithful in Charlotte might not like centrist ideas much. But they would appeal to the voters Mr. Obama needs to win over and, should he be re-elected, they will strengthen him in his dealings with the Republicans in Congress.

[12] Incumbents tend to win presidential elections, but second-term presidents tend to be disappointing. Mr. Obama’s first-term record suggests that, if re-elected, he could be the lamest of ducks. That’s why he needs a good answer to the big question: just what would you do with another four years?

[Viewpoint] Raising the bar for higher education

[1] Universities and education authorities should work together to find ways to improve their budgets and financial management. The government has been pursuing various policies to allow greater freedom in terms of how universities, which were constrained by education authorities until 2000, operate.

[2] There are numerous examples of universities around the world gaining a competitive edge courtesy of their respective governments’ moves to make them more independent.

[3] Some of the leading examples of this are the Ivy League schools in the northeastern U.S., as well as public colleges such as the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and the University of Wisconsin, not to mention British institutions like Oxford and Cambridge.

[4] Seoul announced a new set of plans to enhance the autonomy of Korean institutes of higher education recently. Past steps were limited, mostly allowing them more control in terms of which students they admit. The new plan includes much deregulation.

[4] This comes as a sharp reversal from last year, when the government acted with a heavy hand by demanding that tuition fees be cut and restructuring be carried out, as well as subjecting them to an unprecedented level of auditing by the Board of Audit and Inspection.

[5] The turnaround suggests the government has reached the conclusion that universities cannot restructure and reform themselves unless they are given greater sovereignty.

[6] Easing rules pertaining to the construction of school buildings like dormitories, the utilization of school property to generate revenue for purposes other than education and the freedom to admit more foreign students are among the list of demands that universities have long been campaigning for.

[7] Strong leadership is essential in terms of upgrading the competitiveness of universities. Behind most prestigious universities stand competent chief administrators, and leaders of prominent U.S. universities influence educational practices around the world.

[8] Often cited are Charles Eliot of Harvard and Robert Hutchins at the University of Chicago. Eliot, who was with Harvard for 40 years until 1909, transformed what was a provincial college into America’s most elite school. In contrast, the tenure for a Korean university president has been limited to four years. Some schools have already adopted the recommendation to lift this limit, which will help bolster the quality of higher education in the country by allowing for consistent policies to be applied.

[9] Flexibility in budgeting and sales of idle assets can also greatly ease the financial straits of universities that entirely depend on tuition fees for revenue. Previously, they could not use these properties to generate revenue, but the easing of this rule will no doubt soon prove another boon.

[10] Fundamentally, the government needs to increase its subsidies for, and financial support of, universities. Such support currently accounts for just 0.6 percent of GDP, below the 1 percent average of OECD members.

[11] If the government really wants to bring down tuition fees while strengthening education standards, it needs to spend at least an extra 10 trillion won ($8.82 billion).

[12] However, the recently introduced liberalization measures have not resolved all of universities’ problems. Many will not be able to fill up classrooms when population changes cause the number of students to ebb in the next five years.

[13] Moreover, due to the still unacceptably low level of university standards, college graduates will find it more difficult to find jobs in the future. Fingers will be pointed at the schools and those who run them, and many will inevitably face harsh restructuring.

[14] Instead of simply campaigning for independence, universities and education authorities should work together to find ways to improve their budgets and financial management, while also upgrading the quality of the education they provide. Universities should use the momentum of liberalization to reinvent themselves.

*The writer is the president of Sungkyunkwan University. /// By Kim Jun-young

[ⓢⓤⓝⓝⓨ]

벌써 4년이 흘러서 오바마 대통령 임기가 끝나가네요. 정말 재선될지 어떨지 궁금해지네요. 간만에 미국 정치 관련 글 기사 읽어서 좋았습니다. 감사해요~

[Van!]

요즘도 강남역 파고다에서 금요일마다 스터디 하는데요....3명은 올해 시험준비하시고...3명은 영어스터디....발표도 하고 재미있습니다...^^ ..이번주 자료 중에 하나 인데.... 여튼 이코노미스트 스터디....오래오래하고 있어요...ㅋㅋ