Dead heat

Barack Obama, seeking a second term, enjoys a statistically negligible 1% lead in the popular vote in the last poll held. There is nothing more than a sliver of voters who remain undecided this late in the game.

The calamity of a superstorm notwithstanding, elections will push through next Tuesday. The decisive element, it now appears, is the calamity itself.

Three-quarters of Americans think Obama did an excellent job in handling this destructive weather event. New Jersey governor Chris Christie, a staunch Republican and Romney supporter, praised Obama’s managerial focus in the wake of the calamity. It was a grudging concession, but one that resonates with many voters.

More significantly, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg broke his neutrality to endorse Obama for reelection. In the last presidential contest, Bloomberg endorsed neither major candidate.

In Bloomberg’s view, Obama is the better candidate to lead the US in dealing with the consequences of global warming. Since he sat as a senator, Obama advocated policies that will reduce carbon emissions as well as a strategy to shift to renewable energy sources.

The discussion on the role of government in managing the environmental impact of economic activity appears to have gained importance in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. Days after the storm struck, millions of Americans are enduring the cold without power. The damage to transport systems and power lines will require billions to repair — and brings home the point that America’s infrastructure is ageing and requires urgent government investment.

The Republican Party appeals to a base that minimizes concerns over global warming, with a fringe even questioning its scientific validity. With strong support from rich oil barons, the Republicans advocate even more aggressive drilling for oil. The conservatives are responsible for an energy policy structure that puts the US way behind Europe in penalizing pollution and taxing energy use comprehensively.

Emission standards in Europe are many years ahead of those in the US. Despite resistance from American automakers, Obama wants stricter emission standards enforced.

Among the more memorable lines from Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, an event that had to be adjusted because of a prevailing hurricane, the conservative candidate chided Obama for wanting to slow the rise of the oceans. He must now be chewing on his own words.

The rise of the oceans, it now appears, is a factor explaining the rare event that is Superstorm Sandy. The lower half of Manhattan is in danger of slipping under the tides. The Jersey shore was devastated by storm surges.

No set-piece debate between the candidates could drive home the need for managing climate change better than this storm did. No set-piece debate could convince American voters about the need for effective government intervention that this calamity did.

As many anticipate, this storm could be the tie-breaker.

The Republicans want the least government imaginable. The Democrats prefer a much larger government that looks after health, education and suitable infrastructure to benefit a threatened middle class.

The past few days swamped us with images of troops sent in to rescue beleaguered communities, subways under water, power outages making life miserable for millions and transport systems that buckled under high winds. A smaller government with less resources might have been snowed under by the sheer scale of this calamity.

In the aftermath of Sandy, claims that the US government is too large, too overarching, resonate less with that sliver of voters who remain undecided at this late hour. Democratic strategists hope this will turn the political tide in the Midwestern battleground states. The US Northeast, after all, is already solidly Democratic as the South is solidly Republican.

We will know in a few days how much this storm affected voter choices.

Donation

The Philippine government has been in a fit of generosity lately. We have sent money to help calamity victims in Japan and China. We even lent a cool billion dollars to the IMF to help the poor Europeans deal with their debts.

In the aftermath of Sandy, our government donated $250,000 to the American Red Cross. A grateful US Ambassador to Manila duly acknowledged the contribution.

$250,000 is not much, really. That is barely enough to buy a new, entry-level Porsche sports car. Sandy’s damage to public infra and private property could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Nonetheless, it is the gesture that matters. Nearly every year, we are hit by calamities and each time we benefit from the generosity of other nations. We have to give back, too.

At about the time Sandy hit the US Northeast, a tropical storm also swept into the Bay of Bengal. As such weather events usually do, storm surges swept into Bangladesh, taking many more casualties than the Atlantic storm that hogged western media attention.

If we are in such a generous mood, why did we ignore Bangladesh? Why did we hand money over to rich Americans and yet deny the same gesture to the poor Bangladeshis?

True, Bangladesh floods routinely. The US Northeast floods only rarely. Over half of low-lying Bangladesh comes under water during severe monsoon storms. That does not mean the Bangladeshis have less need for our assistance.

Our generosity could be amplified by being a little more democratic — or else such acts might be suspect. We might be accused of passing our generosity through the prism of political contingency — or worse, of exercising a preferential option for the rich.