Barack Obama’s political career has up to now been glossed with glamour and charisma. His ascendancy has been remarkable and even as President he enjoys the celebrity status reminiscent of JFK. The Obama victory was constructed on a short and consistent narrative: “Change.” He ran as a centrist without a strict ideological base, vowing to change how things ran in Washington. Today’s election holds Obama to account for what has (and has not) been delivered up to now. While Obama’s liberal convictions can’t be disputed, some of the criticism that has been levelled is that his reforms have fallen short of the real change many expected. The real picture could be different from the one portrayed by the media and Obama’s appearance last Thursday on the satirical “Daily Show” was intended to set the record straight on the accomplishments of his administration.
One striking paradox of the Obama Presidency is that as candidate he had trumpeted the need for bipartisanship on salient issues. But he is now presiding over one of the most polarized moments in recent history. His detractors take every shot to denounce any initiative that seems to give an inch back to government. The idea of smaller government has always been a flagship of Republicans but was mostly given kudos during the Reagan Presidency. Unlike Europe, where government intervention is considered a necessity, the narrative in the US is that government (by default) is at the core of the crises. So reducing government is always perceived to be part of the solution. The two main reforms that Obama is spearheading are the Health Care and Wall Street reforms. The former has mandated health insurance to everyone providing subsidies to ensure affordable healthcare. The second was aimed at increasing regulation to improve accountability and transparency in the financial system (a Consumer Protection Act was also included). In foreign policy, Obama has adopted a more conciliatory tone than his predecessor but has still not placated the aura of terrorist networks. While in Iraq, Obama pledged that no U.S. service members will remain after 1/1/2012, in Afghanistan he escalated the war and threatened to violate Pakistani territory to root out militants. Meanwhile defence spending rose from 4.3% to 4.9%.
An undeniable fact is that Obama took helm during the worst recession since 1929. Since he took office the period has been marked by stagnation. In the 2009 the economy contracted by 3%, while this year 9.7% unofficial unemployment and 18% real unemployment were recorded. In addition, one out of every five Americans is receiving food stamps. Billionaire investor George Soros has recently argued that the US needs more fiscal stimulus rather than opting for more spending cuts. Increased regulation has given rise to populist organizations such as the Tea Party Movement. Embraced by the GOP and endorsed by key figures such as Sarah Palin, the TPM is now a promoter of dissent that is attracting lavish sponsorships from enchanted donors.
Today’s will be a referendum on President Obama and notwithstanding his steady campaigning, the GOP is expected to have a comfortable win in the gubernatorials and a marginal win in Congress. However, Democrats are expected to keep the upper lead in the Senate. If this had to be confirmed, Democrats fear a repetition of 1995, when Newt Gingrich shut down government during the Clinton Presidency.
To add insult to injury, Obama’s perils do not hail solely from the opposite camp. Conservative Democrats may secede their support rendering the suggestion that Obama’s nomination for 2012 should not be taken for granted after all. This mid-term test may be changing the political landscape for the second part of the legislation, but it may lend credibility to the recently unthinkable prospect that Obama will be a one term President. The lack of leadership on the GOP side and the increasing fragmentation within its ranks should for now comfort the 44th President that this scenario will not materialize.
George V. Zammit
[email protected]