Two countries, two systems

Two countries. Two governments. Both unpopular. And one of them will have a test to meet in less than two weeks' time.

On Tuesday, November 2, Americans will elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives and one third of the 100-member Senate. It is widely believed that the Democrats will lose some or all of the substantial majority they'd won in 2008. National opinion polls have Republicans between 7 and 17 percent ahead of Democrats. Only 42 to 47 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama.

In Germany, meanwhile, the coalition of Angela Merkel seems absolutely unconcerned about its 30 percent popularity rating — a rating so low that, if an election were held tomorrow, Guido "Westerwave" wouldn't even be in parliament, let alone be foreign minister.

Why is the governing party in America trembling and not the governing party in Germany?

The German opposition has an excellent opportunity to strike. It could hold a vote of no confidence and sweep out Merkel and Westerwelle in a heartbeat. But it won't. The opposition knows its own policies might be just as ineffective. By waiting things out, it can let the governing coalition have all the blame to itself.

Not so in America. There, being in power is all that counts. The opposition — be it Democrats or Republicans — spends every moment between elections dreaming of the day when it can get back into power.

The Democratic Congress gained a majority in 2006 because they were not Republicans. Now the Republicans have a chance because they are not Democrats. Voters' memories are short, and it's easy enough to portray the other side as corrupt, insiderish and wasteful. There's no need for strategy; tactics will suffice.

Politics is not about facts. It is about perception — and this highlights another big difference between Merkel's faltering coalition and Obama's faltering entourage.

In both countries, the economy is in a slump and people are out of work. Granted, the situation is certainly worse in America, which is less of a welfare state. But since last year's election, Merkel's government has been saying consistently that the hard times will be over any minute now — even when the facts haven't quite supported that assertion — and the media have been happy to repeat this. In other words, she's been in control of her message.

Obama, on the other hand, hasn't seemed in control of his message at any time in the 21 months he's been in office. Only reluctantly has he had the support of his fellow Democrats in Congress — many of whom rode his coattails to office — while the American media have ranged between critical and openly hostile.

Although Obama and the Democrats have done what they said they would do — withdraw from Iraq, improve America's image in the world, offer health care to uninsured Americans, re-regulate the financial industry, work toward reducing nuclear weapons, and prevent the financial crisis from getting substantially worse — it's not enough. The news and talk radio offer constant reminders of the state of the economy. They also offer reminders that, contrary to Obama's stated intentions, his advisers have all wound up being Washington or Wall Street insiders.

This election is not about Barack Obama — at least one Senate candidate has had to make that clear — but coming halfway between his own election and the next one in which he will have to compete, Obama can't be removed from the equation.

What happened to hope and change? "If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place," Obama says.