No longer Mr Teflon

American politics has never been pretty. But as it lunges towards deciding who to install as the 45th occupant of the White House, it seems a smelling distance away from the gutter.

The vitriolic campaign, replete with low language and personal attacks, is the culmination of four of the most unproductive legislative years where a deadlocked Congress has been unable to hammer out compromises on vital issues even as legislators have busied themselves with in-house histrionics to sharpen their campaign messages. The economic recovery is sputtering, wages are crawling and much-needed federal spending has been stalled as the government remains gridlocked.

Meanwhile, in the fight for the top job between a president whose promises have remained just that and his main contender who pledges more of what has failed in the past, Americans are feebly hoping for something positive to come out of a campaign that is mirroring the tears slitting their country.

Robin Bohanan, a 50-year-old nursing practitioner from York, says, "There is so much divisiveness because our politicians have decided to disagree more than agree. People have become centred on issues in a very bad guy-good guy kind of way. There was always a difference but never like this. This has made people fearful. Those with resources are looking for someone to blame for the way things are. Those who do not have resources are getting more marginalised."

At the heart of this divide is the economy which Denver-based attorney and public policy strategist Jessica Peck says has made this "a very, very hard time".

A report of the non-partisan Congressional Budget office puts figures on just how hard it is getting to bridge that divide. According to the October 2011 report, while for the top one per cent of American households income grew by 275 per cent; the bottom 20 per cent had to remain content with just an 18 per cent hike between 1979 and 2007.

The Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary released by the Bureau of Labour Statistics in
July this year underscores that while unemployment as a whole has fallen, it has risen in 44 of the country's 50 states. Even otherwise, unemployment figures at 8.3 per cent remain, what has been described by the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, as "at near-depression levels".

The June 2012 layoff and discharge figures put out by the Bureau reveal that the numbers remain at a high 1.8 million, down just a shade from the 2.1 million recorded at the end of the recession in June 2009.

Says Debbie Brown, the director of Colorado Women's Alliance, an organisation that researches and advocates on issues of concern to women, "There is rising fear that if we do not take economic decisions now, tomorrow would be too late. Economic issues have trumped everything else. Our research shows that women are more concerned about their children finding jobs and about them owning homes. Social issues are not at the top of the list. There is more concern about the promises that were broken, about the bad decisions which have been taken. The American enthusiasm about electing the first black president is over."

While not every figure from the economy has contributed to that loss of enthusiasm, there is no denying that even marginally good news is tinged with the bad. Thus, while a one per cent decrease in homelessness is noted by the State of Homelessness in America Report of 2012, which examines the period of the economic downturn between 2009 and 2011, the same report records a two per cent increase in the unsheltered population (living on streets, cars and the like).

Also, while the homeless population decreased nationally, it went up in 24 states, and in Washington DC. The report further counts a rise in unemployed people by four per cent (from 14.3 million in 2009 to 14.8 million in 2010) and a mere one per cent rise in the income of the working poor. In 2010, foreclosures put 50,000 more families out of their homes than they did in 2009.

These figures are driving ordinary Americans to push hard at the panic buttons and imagine the worst. An August 2012 report by the Pew Centre for

Research illustrates this. When questioned on what kind of news they heard about the economy, an overwhelming 41 per cent said "mostly bad". Those in the "mostly good" category were a miniscule three per cent.

Despite these grim numbers, neither Barack Hussein Obama nor Willard Mitt Romney has approached the campaign with radical plans to overhaul the debt -ridden, almost stagnant economy.

While the plan of the Democrats is to tax the rich, lower taxes on manufacturing and cut spending in the long run, the Republicans propose to cut back government spending, lower regulations and reduce taxes to give the private sector a free run to mend the problem.

As critics would argue, while the first has not yielded any miracles in the last three-and-a-half years, the latter promotes debt fuelled over consumption and is responsible for much of the economic dismay.

Elsewhere, economics and social issues are colliding like never before. Thus, when the quintessentially American fast food chain Chik-fil-A, best known for its chicken sandwiches, gave a thumbs up to traditional marriages (a Republican cause), it togged record sales.

The chief of another American favourite, Papa John's, declared that a hike in pizza prices would be inevitable post the coming into effect of the revamped Healthcare Act (popularly known as Obama Care) that requires employers to provide health insurance to employees.

Gregg Fields, a research fellow at the Edmond J Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University and formerly a journalist with the Miami Herald, says that while economic leadership is at the top of the agenda, it is triggering pointed social debates. "America has not been very good at talking about regional disparities. Poverty cannot be discussed without racial components. With that coming to the fore, some very sharp lines have been drawn. There is a renewed sense of anxiety among the working class while the rich feel  they are being targeted for their success. When you peel these layers, you fall into deep sociological issues that America has had a very hard time dealing with.”

An example of one such contentious issue is women's reproductive rights.

Kathleen Gerus-Darbison, a teacher of Sociology in Michigan, says, "Suddenly there is just black and white. There is no distinction between being pro-choice and being pro- abortion. How did we get so judgmental? To see that happen in an election year is scary."

The Republican, pro-life stance, with a commitment to do away with government-funded abortions is at complete variance with the Democratic campaign which as part of the hotly debated Affordable Care Act requires many insurance companies to fully cover costs for birth control as part of women's preventive care.

Romney's running mate Paul Ryan has still stauncher pro-life credentials, having co-sponsored a bill in 2011 which stated that the "life of each human being begins with fertilisation, cloning, or its functional equivalent... at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood".

A sample of just how controversial the issue can get was served in March this year when Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, labelled Sandra Fluke, a law student, a "slut" for speaking before the Congress in support of insurance coverage to women's birth control. More recently Todd Akin, a Republican senator, debunked the need for abortion even in cases of rape by putting forth the thesis that women's bodies had a definite mechanism to trip conception in cases of "legitimate rape".

Lauren Hasek, an undergraduate student at the University of Pittsburgh, despairs at the shape of such debates. "Religious beliefs are changing the face of the polity. Matters which should be debated on purely health grounds are getting entangled with belief systems. The conversations around it are ugly, shocking and ignorant. This is not a promising way forward," she says.

A campaign where contestants liberally embellish the opposition with adjectives such as "disgrace" (Romney for Obama) and hold the other responsible for the death of a woman (an ad supporting Obama), could hardly be labelled promising or fair.

An alarming sub script is emerging from this jagged campaign. Five years ago, 46 per cent whites identified themselves as Republicans, a close 44 per cent as Democrats. In 2012, the Republican figure is up to 52 per cent, the Democratic down to 40 per cent. But the red flag is that 87 per cent of those who identify themselves as Republicans are white, making the GOP a party that blacks, Hispanics and other populations are rapidly moving away from.

In Republican-controlled states, laws have been framed for stricter voter identification – leading to fears that this will work against traditional Democratic supporters who tend to be economically, educationally and socially weaker.

Jessica Taylor, a senior analyst at The Rothenberg Political Report, points out that the dirt in this campaign can be attributed in part to the growth of the social media. "We are seeing the full impact of the social media. There is no more waiting for the newspapers. People are quick to express their frustrations and passions. The Republicans chose their nominee very early and the campaign has been protracted. It was bound to get dirty. Both sides are trying to control the message that goes out as well as circumventing the traditional media to get out the message directly to the electorate."

Taylor's observation is upheld by a recent report of the Pew Research Centre which concludes that 71 and 72 per cent of the coverage (mostly generated by the campaigns and not traditional media) of Romney and Obama has been negative.

Tim Kennedy, co-founder of the Washington DC-based Strategic Policy Group, believes that the persona of the presidential candidates has also stamped a divide on the election. 

"Obama has been a divisive figure among Liberals. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay and to pull out of Afghanistan but that did not happen. The realities of the economy and the unstable world had guaranteed that Obama
would be divisive. Romney on the other hand, has not been able to entirely convince even the Republicans. His unwillingness to allow people to look into his financial affairs makes him appear suspect to some within his own party.
"Some people might be uncomfortable with his unwillingness to discuss his religious affiliations more openly (Romney is a Mormon). Like Ronald Reagan, he comes from a wealthy family, but does not emanate the same genuineness
that the former did. This has made him seem aloof from blue collar Americans," says Kennedy.

However, Dan Winters, the founder of an Internet advertising firm in Denver, believes that for the Democrats, a negative campaign has been a forced choice. "The president has been rebuffed for being a person who brings opposing sides together. The Democrats have not been known to play hardball like the Republicans. For a change it is good to see that they will do whatever it takes to get to power. Romney comes off as untrustworthy. There is also the genuine fear that if he were to come to power the Tea Party will have a greater influence and make us look worse."

The Tea Party, often held as the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party, has been upholding the lofty promise of re-establishing the founding principles of America through a stringent set of beliefs (including gun ownership is scared and special interest must be eliminated) since it first made its appearance in 2009.

And though a report by the Pew Research Centre, dated November 2011, said that more Americans disagree (27 per cent) than agree (20 per cent) with the movement, analysts are quick to point out that it cannot be dismissed, more specifically for its disruptive force, evidenced so well in its role in prompting Republicans it supported to deadlock Congress.

Stephen P Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, a Washington DC-based think tank that studies national public policy,  attributes the "hard rhetoric" of the Republicans to the Tea Party but dismisses the idea that the party could bear substantial influence on policy, especially foreign policy.

"Either way, these elections will not have a significant impact on India, except in that a Republican Congress could adopt a tougher policy towards Pakistan. The Obama administration is likely to continue the present policy towards India and Pakistan unless there is an exceptional event like an India-Pakistan conflict," he says.

Not that in a fiercely inward looking election that really matters. For now, Americans are simply focussed on side stepping the gutter.