On The Re-Election of Barack Obama

I'll start this off by saying that, as they often do, Americans made the best choice on Tuesday. Being that the vast majority of Canadians wanted Barack to win last night, there may not be much of a case to be made here. Barack, according to a variety of polls, was the favourite amongst the populations of the world. Across Europe, Asia and nearly every country where people were asked they resoundingly said they wanted four more years. The one country that bucked this trend was Pakistan. No doubt this was as a result of anger over the Obama administration's use of predator drones (the “giant killing machines” --as the Onion refers to them-- that take the human casualty aspect out of the American side of the equation in Afghanistan). Yet, while it was clear the world wanted Obama, Americans seemed very unsure in the lead-up to the election. Romney even had the momentum, if not the outright lead, for much of the campaign. If the world knew so clearly who America should elect how were the American's so unsure? Canadians, with their pop-culture consumption of American politics, chalked it up to American stupidity. That is simplistic and silly. It is easy to observe, from afar, goings-on that one has very little intimate understanding of. It is easier yet to do so without understanding the differences in place, culture, identity, and politics that result in entirely different contextual frameworks. The experience of an American participating in their own democracy is different from a Canadian participating in theirs and we would do well to observe and take note. Instead of limiting ourselves to a pop-culture consummation of the American election that reflects on the most petty, partisan, and frankly depressing aspects of American politics we would do well to look at the election in an effort to understand and learn from it. Then we would be adding something valuable to the discourse rather than adding to the noise. Here is my attempt.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 by a resounding margin. He came to office on promises of hope and change that reflected America's distaste with the final years of the Bush regime, tiredness of war, apprehension about the economy, and the American need to see the silver lining in it all. The American Dream needed to be reinvigorated and kept alive and Americans needed to feel good about themselves. His victory cut across partisan lines and it felt truly historic in no small measure because of his race. His first term was marked by some significant achievements and failures. In the face of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, America took a big hit and its recovery has been slow, and painful. Budget deficits and the national debt continue to increase astronomically and the bipartisanship that Obama promised seems nowhere to be found. Obama did manage to introduce his plan to universalize health-care insurance. He has ended the war in Iraq and is in the process of doing so in Afghanistan. And, of course, they 'got' Osama Bin Laden.

The election was (despite the attempts of some third-party candidates) a decision between two different men with two different visions for America; to understand one candidate we must view them in context with the other. Mitt Romney was known as the moderate Republican Governor of Massachusetts. In fact, that plan for the universalization of healthcare that the Obama administration boasts of –but receives very mixed levels of approval by for-- was taken directly from Romney's plan in Massachusetts. During the Republican primaries, however, Romney continually tacked further and further to the right. Some of the positions he was 'forced' into worked but, they certainly gave the impression of a different Mitt. On his own healthcare plan, for example, he took a position acceptable to most Republicans and states-rights proponents: that his plan worked for Massachusetts and that states should all work towards their own localized plan, rather than having the federal government legislate a one-size-fits-all plan. Fair enough. But Romney tacked to the right on abortion and contraception. He pledged no tax increases whatsoever, even if huge budget cuts were agreed to by the Senate and Congress; the economics of the American debt-load requires an unfortunate mixture of expenditure reduction and tax increase if Americans ever hope to adequately address the issue. Romney's march onward and rightward was deemed necessary by many experts who insisted that if he didn't move to the right primary voters would reject him and vote in one of his more radical opponents. Unfortunately it also did damage to Romney amongst the very voters that he had such an opportunity to gain; moderates. Those who self-identified themselves as moderates overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and, eventually, 2012. They were also overwhelmingly disappointed with Obama and very ready to look at an alternative in 2012.

In the Republican primaries Romney never really faced a formidable opponent. He tacked right to ward off what really was a lunatic fringe and in the process tarnished his reputation. Once he won he took a while to move back to the moderate Mitt that politicos were familiar with; the first debate being the main occasion. He began to overtake Obama in the polls and the momentum was with him. Moderate Mitt had a real shot at winning. He only had the problem of his own campaigning over the previous year to stand in his way. When candidates change their positions, particularly over a short period of time, and often, the electorate becomes wary. They may have liked what Romney was saying but now the question became could they believe it? Add to that a few offhanded remarks by some extreme social conservatives regarding God's intention of rape etc., and the doubt surrounding Mitt ruined the parity he had created between him and Obama amongst women.

Obama was by no means a shoe-in. He has been a popular president but he has also been popularly disappointing to a great number of Americans. Midwesterners, blue-collar workers, suburban moms, Hispanics, and young urban professionals (or yuppies, as seems unfashionable to call them now) were groups that largely voted for Obama in 2008 and were ripe for the picking by a moderate opponent; one like the Governor of Massachusetts, saviour of the Salt Lake City Olympics and successful businessman. Many of these voters liked Obama because of the hope and change he promised. They hoped he could work with his opponents to achieve change but Obama never approached Republicans to create bi-partisan plans with him --rather he presented prefabricated plans to Republicans and then insisted they sign on.

Obama won for a variety of reasons, the most important of which are demonstrated by contrasting him with Romney. Obama campaigned on his record of steady, concrete action. He achieved less than Americans had hoped --and on the results they were mixed-- but he had followed through, or attempted to, on his campaign promises and promised more change for the next four years. He did not go back and forth on positions or seem hard to pin down politically. Romney did. Obama did less to adapt his record to a more moderate position, however, the radical elements of the Democratic party are simply not as prominent as they are in the Republican party. This created the impression –or illusion-- that Romney was more extreme and Obama more moderate.

I will admit that Romney was my favourite in the Republican primaries of 2008. In 2012 I was hoping it would be his year. I thought it was time for the Republican party to moderate itself and bring the power within the party back in line with the political compass of America. It seems such a process needs to develop roots and grow over time, rather than the sudden shift I was hoping for. The Republican Party was founded on principles and ideas that are timeless. Republican ideals are at the heart of what it means to be American and that will never change. Despite all the partisan noise and the habit of expressing things in extreme ways, Americans are moderates and are increasingly identifying themselves in this manner.

This being the most important lesson of the election. The Democrats positioned themselves, starting with Bill Clinton, as a party of moderates. They were forced to do so by lacklustre performances at the polls for over a decade and the perception that they were only accessible to those far to the left. Now is the time for the Republicans to do the same. The two-party system in America works only if both parties operate as “big tent” homes to a variety of political attitudes, ideas, groups, and individuals that can unite around central tenants. The smaller that Republicans make their tent, and the larger Democrats make theirs, the more lopsided American democracy becomes. This is unhealthy for all Americans and democracy the world over.