Lessons

Romney vs. Obama. It was a question of realism against the idealism. Moral good vs. evil? I’d heard it described as that. It was a debate that raged on and on until the results were declared, questioned (mainly by Karl Rove), re-counted and re-counted again. Mitt Romney was the business savvy, rich Republican who focused heavily on kick-starting America and reuniting under a banner of singularity. Barack Obama is the great defender, the orator, the charmer who will restore American employment and the economy. Are both men able to lead? Personally I’d suggest either could (perhaps a question of followers rather than leading?) – Barack has done relatively well in exceptional circumstances and a restrictive Congress. Mitt has partially unified the divided Republican Party back together into a patchwork, a mesh of different ideologies and beliefs with the sole aim of removing Obama as President. Should either have continued to be/become President? Probably not. Is the ‘house’ divided once more? Probably yes.

Romney as President was not the doomsday scenario that was portrayed to be, but I’d hasten to add it’s certainly not the answer either. Put simply, the Republican Party continues to fail at learning the lessons from the failed Bush administration, and neither has it been rehabilitated enough to govern again. Romney was chosen in the primaries not for his successes but more for his rivals’ failings. The primaries were an exercise in poor choice and leadership, combined with some of the most bizarre nominations in the parties’ recent history. A hard fought race with a capable candidate would have given Americans real food for thought, instead of laughing at Romney’s ‘binders of women’. Did Mitt make a case for the youth or minority vote? There’s an assumption that this demographic was 100% behind the Democrats but that’s a stereotype. As proven, a large percentage chose Obama, but that didn’t have to happen if Romney had actually campaigned and put forth some policies that catered to their needs. Put simply, questions can and should be raised as to whether right leaning people voted for the Republicans as an endorsement of their candidate, as they had no other choice, or simply to make a stand against the incumbent. Running a platform that initially sought only to repeal legislation passed in the previous term is unfavourable at best and ridiculous at worst, and I predict another period of deep soul-searching for the Republicans until next election. We should note that there are positives to this result though:-
After all it was a much closer race than initially anticipated (i.e. from the acceptance of Romney as candidate onwards). Opinion polls claimed it would be a close race but it varied after the debates. Statistical data as of the 9^th Nov suggest that Mitt only lost the popular vote by around three million votes – hardly a sweep from the Dems. Secondly, the groundwork for a concerted tilt at 2016 is in place – continuing control of the House ensures that Obama simply must cross party lines to pass anything noteworthy, which is something he really failed to do the four years previous. PR wise the party will go one of two ways. It’s control of the floating voters that they need, so they can either continue with their blockade of Democrat legislation, then run a campaign based on how their opposition (as in the Democrats, not their opposition OF the Democrats) allowed America to stagnate – or they can work alongside, then should the outlook appear brighter for America domestically they can claim credit.

Obama has work to do if he wants to leave a positive legacy behind. There’s no denying that Obama the man is a polished article, an orator and an idealist. Obama the politician is unrefined and stubborn. Not always a bad thing, but from the outside looking in this has proven troublesome, especially when it comes to the debt ceiling issue. His party has a second chance and four more years to improve recovery, and increase GDP growth at a quicker rate. It’s a tall order, but should he be more conciliatory without sacrificing party principle, conceding where necessary but maintaining a firm line (not resorting to the veto as often) then he could be viewed as a success, and not just among the more liberal-leaning Americans. The debt ceiling is his real acid test. Shaving half a trillion dollars in seven weeks? That will be viewed globally with great interest, especially amongst Europeans and the G20.

Whilst I encourage feedback on my thoughts, this is a potential hotbed so should any conversation arise please be civil. We all have our own views and ideas and speech is free. All I ask is mutual respect. For what it’s worth I don’t favour either party – All I would like to see is a strong America, and a sustainable global recovery.