This is my first post for quite some time!
In my September 2011 blog post on Obama’s chances of
re-election, I noted that he faced a very tough, but not impossible, journey to
regaining the White House. Despite bleak poll and unemployment figures, I said
that a divided alternative could yet aid his cause and play into his hands. It
is fair to say that this proved to be a crucial factor in Obama becoming only
the second Democrat since FDR to win re-election.
The Republican Primaries were a farce. We were treated to an “oops”
moment from Rick Perry, an “erm” stuttering on Libya from Herman Cain and a
declaration from Rick Santorum that Obama is “a snob” for wanting every
American to have the opportunity to go to college, to name a few moments. Michele
Bachmann, an early contender and a Tea Party member of Congress, declared at an
Iowa event that the Founding Fathers had abolished slavery in the USA, with
John Quincy-Adams at the forefront (Adams wasn’t a Founding Father). The
American Civil War must have been an irrelevance, then.
Although at many times comical, the sheer extremism of the
Republican Party is nothing if not offensive. Rick Santorum (Mitt Romney’s
strongest challenger in the primaries) decreed that sex amongst homosexuals is
equivalent to “man on dog sex”. With Nadine Dorries recently suspended by the
British Conservative Party for appearing on I’m
a Celebrity, it doesn’t take much to wonder what fate would befall an MP if
they made similar comments. However, such views appear commonplace amongst
Republicans; remember Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment? With such a
backdrop as this with the GOP, serial flip-flopper Mitt Romney emerged as the
most credible candidate.
With this in mind, Obama theoretically should have stormed
ahead in the polls as 2012 began, even with unemployment hovering around the 8%
mark. America may be considered a far more right wing country than Britain, but
Obama had larger than 10 point leads over Santorum (arguably the most right
wing contender in the Republican primaries) when placed in hypothetical
contests. In conjunction with this, Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on almost
every major issue, highlighted by Romney contradicting himself at different
points in time over issues such as healthcare, abortion and women’s rights:
However, Romney nevertheless capitalised on an
uncharacteristically feeble performance by the President during the first
election debate, something which had Democrats seriously fearing that they
would lose in November. Obama fought back in the other two debates, but the
polls remained stubbornly narrow, with Romney even stretching ahead in some
cases. On the eve of the election, Obama v Romney was 48.8% v 48.1% in the
polls (source: Real Clear Politics).
With the race almost too close to call, numerous commentators made reference to
the neck and neck race between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000, where the
state of Florida proved to be crucial in deciding the outcome. It would be the
swing states of Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New
Hampshire that would decide the election, with Ohio of particular importance;
it has backed every winner since the 1964 election. Two competing economic
visions were at stake; Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans
to help plug the multi-trillion dollar debt and deficit, whilst Romney wanted a
multi-trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthiest Americans; a return to Bush’s
trickle-down economics.
The quirks of the electoral system in America meant that
Obama clinched a decisive victory over Romney; 303 electoral votes to 206 (with
Florida still waiting to declare). However, the reality is that despite winning
the popular vote with 50%, Romney finished just two points behind. This
polarisation is reflected in the makeup of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, just as it was after the 2010 mid-terms; the Republican Party hold a
majority in Congress, whilst the Democrats have control of the Senate, but
crucially without a 60-seat ‘filibuster-proof’ majority. The “fiscal cliff” is
looming, and Obama will once again have to compromise with a fiery Congress if
he is to avoid another debt and credit rating crisis, but Republicans remain
determined in refusing to countenance a single tax rise, favouring substantial
cuts to domestic programs, and an increase in the military budget.
FDR was the last President to be re-elected with such high
unemployment figures, but his New Deal offered hope around the corner in 1936.
There are signs that Obama is on the right track too. However, a divided
alternative gave him a big boost, and arguably saved him. The independent vote
was vital for both candidates in swing states, but the Republican’s “severely
conservative” (to quote Romney about himself) social policies alienated many of
them. 93% of African Americans backed Obama, along with 71% of latinos. Romney
may have had more whites vote for him, but the number of white Americans is
slowly decreasing as a demographic, with the latino presence on the increase;
Republicans don’t know how to cope with this change, or possibly offer an
appeal to minority groups. These elements also aided Obama, but a moderate
Republican opponent could well have ejected him out of office.
Romney could have been that “Massachusetts’s moderate”, as he
was once labelled. In the liberal state in Boston, Romney had a centrist
record, with his healthcare plan ironically similar to Obamacare, leading Jay
Leno to humorously (but accurately) describe Romney as “the man who invented
Obamacare before he was against it”. Furthermore,
if we are to take one side of his flip-flops, he has (at some point) held
pro-choice views on abortion, supported economic stimulus and pledged support
to the auto industry (which he later wished to “go bankrupt”). Had Romney
remained consistent with these policies when running for President, I think it would
have been more than likely that Obama would have lost. However, Romney was
determined to gain the suspicious Tea Party vote and lurched rightwards, and
was secretly videotaped accusing 47% of Americans as government-dependents who
will always vote Democrat. His choice of Paul Ryan as running mate, a darling
of the Tea Party with an aggressively fiscal conservatism budget plan, further
underlined his determination to appease anyone who he though could propel him
to the White House. It clinched the Republican nomination, but not the
Presidency.
I don’t wish to sound too critical about Obama’s victory; I’m
unequivocally delighted that he won. His powers of oratory remain undiminished,
and he has faced adversity at every turn with considerable strength.
Governments frequently blame their predecessor’s record for poor growth
performance, but I believe Obama is allowed to do this more than most; he
inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, aided both by
global events and George W. Bush’s reckless spending and regulatory policies. I had to laugh at the satirical caption online
which exclaimed “Vote Republican, because Obama is taking too long to clear up
the mess that we created!” As with Jay Leno’s comments, it has a strong element
of truth for me. Furthermore, Obamacare is far more secure now, and its best elements
will bear fruit in the next two years. Whatever the concerns, I couldn’t abide
the vehement Republican critics of it; how can one of the richest countries on
Earth justify millions of its citizens going without basic health insurance? Now
entering his second and final term, Obama can defend Obamacare further, free
from the pressures of having to run for office again. Having suffered a second
consecutive election defeat (and with no landslide victory since the Ronald
Reagan era), Obama has forced the Republican Party to rethink their policies
and positions; lurching rightwards is not the answer to clinching those crucial
swing states.
Obama faces old challenges as well as new; he must work with
a heavily partisan Congress to reform the tax code and immigration, and he must
get those stubbornly high unemployment figures down (currently at around 7.9%).
The signs are promising, however; growth has remained in positive figures since
2010, something still lacking in the UK. Obama is also still a respected figure
on the global stage, and continuity is welcome. US Democrats and UK
Conservatives may not be natural bedfellows, but the self-proclaimed “compassionate
Conservative” David Cameron is far closer to Obama ideologically than Mitt
Romney (and indeed large swathes of the Republican Party), and there’s little
doubt who the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats will have been rooting
for.
In the short term, Obama must sort out the fiscal cliff, and
try and cajole Republican dissenters. His reputation as a pluralist was
diminished through little fault of his own, but he must be bipartisan to get
things done. In the long term, he must get the economy back on track. Four year
predictions are very tough, but I am confident that Obama will bring
unemployment down substantially in that time. A sound template to follow is
that of Bill Clinton, one of his key supporters during election rallies. Like
Obama, Clinton suffered a bruising mid-term defeat and lost Congress to the Republicans.
Like Obama, he was re-elected. In Clinton’s second term, he turned the budget
deficit into a surplus, and left office with approval ratings above 60%; all of
this with a Republican Congress. Obama can reclaim that audacity of hope.
-Ben
No comments:
Post a Comment