If the 2010 mid-term election results delivered a
“shellacking” to President Obama, the 2014 ones probably go beyond the reach of
the standard dictionary of slang. Barack
Obama now governs – as Bill Clinton did before him – without his party
controlling either the senate or the House.
Worse, the Republicans who are now in charge have a clear agenda to
overturn and stop any reform that featured on the Obama agenda. And if politics was polarised under the
Clinton-Gingrich axis, it is far more polarised now, with McConnell and Boehner
unable to control their reddest, most reactionary members, even if they wanted
to.
There’s a danger with election results such as these that
they warp our view of the man in charge.
After all, as we’ve been so regularly told, these were a verdict on the
president himself. The election was as
much about Obama as anything. Well, if
it was, only about a third of the electorate took part. And as for Obama being the focus, he was
focused through a lens expertly distorted by the Republican campaign.
Obama is a fine speaker – one of the best orators to inhabit
the White House – but he is a relatively poor communicator in all other
respects. His team, whilst efficient,
have failed to make the inroads into the national political psyche that they
need to, partly because they academicise things too much, partly because they
sometimes don’t realise that everything – every single action, every single
defence, every single policy – needs to be relentlessly simplified, broadcast
and repeated until everyone “gets it”.
Mass democracies are not marketplaces for complex theoretical
reasoning. They are harsh, simple,
fickle places and the Obama team has been poor at realising this. The Republicans suddenly became pre-eminent
in this game – not least because they have a natural yen towards negative
advertising and campaigning.
Thus the fact is that, despite the odd and perverse verdict
of the electorate, Obama remains the best bet for Americans, and the world community
which depends so much upon competence and rationalism in the White House.
This is a man who took the presidency in the most
unpropitious circumstances – possibly the worst ever inherited by a president
since Lincoln - but who has yet managed
to pass significant reforms and re-balance what was becoming an irrational and
dangerous foreign policy. Andrew
Sullivan, as so often is the case in commentating upon Obama, provides one of
the most vigorous and persuasive defences of the president in his post-election Dish piece. After assessing the
responsibility that the president needed to take for failures in 2013, Sullivan
goes on to say this:
The same can be said of the economy. No other developed country has achieved the growth that the US has after the stimulus – including austerity-bound Germany. No other administration has presided over a steeper fall in the deficit.
Sullivan’s piece is worth reading in its entirety, but I
finish with this thought. Obama may have
received another electoral punishing, but when we start to eye up the sort of
leadership and vision offered by his successful opponents in the Republican
Party, it really does beg the question of whether electors are capable of
voting properly in their own interests. A
few months down the line, with McConnell besieged on the right by the likes of
Ted Cruz, and trying to obstruct everything the Obama White House does, and
proper reform stalled endlessly, who then will the fickle electors blame? It should be themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment