Obama and the Change That Never Happened
Published in Diario de Noticias
(Portugal) on 18 November 2010
by Maria José Nogueira Pinto (link to original)
(Portugal) on 18 November 2010
by Maria José Nogueira Pinto (link to original)
Translated from
by Alexander Alva.
Edited by Sam Carter.
For better or worse, politics in America are different than what we have here. The campaigns are different, the big issues are different and the relationship between citizens and candidates — as well as the relationship between citizens and the elected — is different than what we're used to. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his work “Democracy in America,” states that the greatness of the United States is not in shining over other nations but in its ability to correct mistakes. When Americans go to the polls, they go there not only as a necessary process to maintain political offices but also, at any given moment, to correct mistakes or confirm good choices. And the politicians in America are aware of and respect the message expressed by the citizens, who are conditioned to an extraordinary system of checks and balances, which has — so far — worked very well.
These "midterm elections" are a reflection of the system, proof of the uniqueness of American politics, and, in this case, it should work as a check on the Obama administration. After the Democratic wave washed over the country in 2008, under the slogans of change and hope, we now have a new political balance: the Democrats hold the presidency but are losing their comfortable Senate majority, and they are watching the Republicans take over the House of Representatives. The moral victory this time was for the Republican Party, and it came as a warning for Obama. In the analyses of the results, we can take into consideration three analytical approaches: The first part of this check and balance logic is the fact that in American politics it is common for the incumbent party to get poor results at midterm elections. The second explanation, although unconvincing to most Americans, is based on factors outside the control of the Obama administration, including poor politics by the previous administration or the international crises. Finally, we have a third reason, which is the fact that most Americans decided to veto the change proposed by the president and now want to replace hope with caution and return to a smaller and less charismatic style of government — as we can see with the importance of the tea party movement.
The numbers for this veto naturally count (like the unemployment rate hovering around 9.6 percent) and so too do the poor economic indicators. And then there are the implementation of certain government measures — i.e. the health care plan, the economic stimulus bill, or excessive legislation regarding environmental protection — all of which do not conform to the American way of playing politics. But decisive in the poor outcome for the president was change, which, ironically, also played a large role in his election. Barack Obama carried out his campaign breaking from a standard — which was more ideological than pragmatic — and embraced essential concepts that gave way to a type of humanitarian idealism (the "change,” the "hope," the "bipartisan" policies and the idea that "it was enough to stand together" to succeed). It is an enthusiastic standard, and a risky one in a country like the United States, where the values of the Republic remain strong and dictate prudence and moderation in the way it comes to political power and where voters continue to reexamine the parties.
Obama was able to create momentum and a dream for many Americans. He was able to get many first-time voters out to the polls through a wave of change and hope. But President Obama never carefully saw the flip side of the coin. Most of those who voted for him (youth and minorities) make up the most unstable base of the electorate, whose loyalty he was not able to gain. More importantly, American politics do not dwell on dreams, moments, waves of euphoria, charisma or commotion. In America, politics are inseparable from reality, the constant approval from its citizens and a set of principles, rules and limits that cannot be broken.
These "midterm elections" are a reflection of the system, proof of the uniqueness of American politics, and, in this case, it should work as a check on the Obama administration. After the Democratic wave washed over the country in 2008, under the slogans of change and hope, we now have a new political balance: the Democrats hold the presidency but are losing their comfortable Senate majority, and they are watching the Republicans take over the House of Representatives. The moral victory this time was for the Republican Party, and it came as a warning for Obama. In the analyses of the results, we can take into consideration three analytical approaches: The first part of this check and balance logic is the fact that in American politics it is common for the incumbent party to get poor results at midterm elections. The second explanation, although unconvincing to most Americans, is based on factors outside the control of the Obama administration, including poor politics by the previous administration or the international crises. Finally, we have a third reason, which is the fact that most Americans decided to veto the change proposed by the president and now want to replace hope with caution and return to a smaller and less charismatic style of government — as we can see with the importance of the tea party movement.
The numbers for this veto naturally count (like the unemployment rate hovering around 9.6 percent) and so too do the poor economic indicators. And then there are the implementation of certain government measures — i.e. the health care plan, the economic stimulus bill, or excessive legislation regarding environmental protection — all of which do not conform to the American way of playing politics. But decisive in the poor outcome for the president was change, which, ironically, also played a large role in his election. Barack Obama carried out his campaign breaking from a standard — which was more ideological than pragmatic — and embraced essential concepts that gave way to a type of humanitarian idealism (the "change,” the "hope," the "bipartisan" policies and the idea that "it was enough to stand together" to succeed). It is an enthusiastic standard, and a risky one in a country like the United States, where the values of the Republic remain strong and dictate prudence and moderation in the way it comes to political power and where voters continue to reexamine the parties.
Obama was able to create momentum and a dream for many Americans. He was able to get many first-time voters out to the polls through a wave of change and hope. But President Obama never carefully saw the flip side of the coin. Most of those who voted for him (youth and minorities) make up the most unstable base of the electorate, whose loyalty he was not able to gain. More importantly, American politics do not dwell on dreams, moments, waves of euphoria, charisma or commotion. In America, politics are inseparable from reality, the constant approval from its citizens and a set of principles, rules and limits that cannot be broken.
Previous article![]( "Uranium Enrichment in North Korea")
