23 October 2012
Defection of Obama Support
Barack Obama surprisingly garnered significant financial support for his first Presidential election campaign from wealthy Wall Street and other business executives who seem to have defected four years later to the ranks of Mitt Romney supporters or to be refraining from making political contributions altogether. When he made his initial run for the office, Mr. Obama soon proved himself to be a serious contender and offered conscientious voters an opportunity to right their long-time embarrassment over never having elected an African American to the country’s highest political office. The same compulsion, substituting gender for race, was a major driver behind the quick success of Hilary Clinton’s Democratic primary campaign.
Unfortunately for him as the incumbent when they happened, the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis saddled Mr. Obama with the blame regardless of his historic importance. It is a convenient angle for his opponent to play—that a different economic recovery program would have shown better results, whether it had been larger or more dependent on private sector investments. And yet, the missing weapon in Mr. Obama’s gunbelt this time compared to 2008 is the novelty of his race. The country has now filled that holster but finds it not to be sufficient for restoring our economic health. Obama must convince the public that in addition to his unique background, he also has the best solutions to our problems.
Race won’t be a deciding factor in Mr. Obama’s bid for reelection. He must win in November 2012 by showing that he will do a better job than his opponent dealing with the state of the country’s affairs; that the approach he demonstrated in the last four years will be more successful in achieving our common goals than that espoused by Mitt Romney. Of course, he can’t change the record of actions and policies during his first term; but he can spin them to look more attractive than the uncertainties promised by his opponent. We’re still not better off than we were at the end of 2008, although our prospects are. The question today is, who will make us better off in 2016 than we are now, both in terms of prospects and material wealth?
Barack Obama surprisingly garnered significant financial support for his first Presidential election campaign from wealthy Wall Street and other business executives who seem to have defected four years later to the ranks of Mitt Romney supporters or to be refraining from making political contributions altogether. When he made his initial run for the office, Mr. Obama soon proved himself to be a serious contender and offered conscientious voters an opportunity to right their long-time embarrassment over never having elected an African American to the country’s highest political office. The same compulsion, substituting gender for race, was a major driver behind the quick success of Hilary Clinton’s Democratic primary campaign.
Unfortunately for him as the incumbent when they happened, the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis saddled Mr. Obama with the blame regardless of his historic importance. It is a convenient angle for his opponent to play—that a different economic recovery program would have shown better results, whether it had been larger or more dependent on private sector investments. And yet, the missing weapon in Mr. Obama’s gunbelt this time compared to 2008 is the novelty of his race. The country has now filled that holster but finds it not to be sufficient for restoring our economic health. Obama must convince the public that in addition to his unique background, he also has the best solutions to our problems.
Race won’t be a deciding factor in Mr. Obama’s bid for reelection. He must win in November 2012 by showing that he will do a better job than his opponent dealing with the state of the country’s affairs; that the approach he demonstrated in the last four years will be more successful in achieving our common goals than that espoused by Mitt Romney. Of course, he can’t change the record of actions and policies during his first term; but he can spin them to look more attractive than the uncertainties promised by his opponent. We’re still not better off than we were at the end of 2008, although our prospects are. The question today is, who will make us better off in 2016 than we are now, both in terms of prospects and material wealth?
Comments:
Post a Comment
