A Romney Moment
More than four months before the November election in the United States and no one dares to predict the name of the eventual victor. The latest polls put Obama and Romney neck-and-neck, which hardly makes sense in a federated nation where the results of a few key states decide the outcome of the election.
And yet, as of mid-June 2012, the best analysts of American politics, regardless of their own political leanings, foresee a difficult task for President Obama. This time around, the very same logic that led to the Democrats’ return to power in 1992, after 12 years of Republican leadership in the White House, seems to be playing out in the Republicans’ favor: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Last week in Ohio, one of the key states, Obama and Romney pitted their economic platforms against one another; the two platforms are based upon antithetical concepts of recovery and growth. In European terms, Obama sounded a lot like Hollande, while Romney seemed to echo Draghi: The Democratic candidate advanced a neo-Keynesian concept of growth, based on the role of the government, whereas Romney’s concept of growth is much more liberal, in the European sense of the term. The reference to Europe is not arbitrary. Romney has accused Obama of being a “European,” ready to drive America into utter disaster. Obama’s response was to denounce Romney’s austerity policy, which according to Obama, would hobble the country.
Europeans, according to a recent study published by the Pew Institute, would reelect Barack Obama in a landslide victory if they could vote in November. But speaking objectively, Europe’s economic situation is clearly playing out in Romney’s favor. “Is Europe going to make Obama lose?” a Democrat asked me worriedly just a few days ago in New York. The chances of Europe’s economic situation making a spectacular recovery between now and November are very small. On the other hand, the risk of the situation getting even worse is very real. The European crisis is not only being closely watched by the American political elites as a decisive factor in the upcoming election, the crisis is now being anxiously monitored — and this is a new development — by the middle class, which watches the old world and wonders constantly how the European crisis will have an impact on their retirement and, more generally, their quality of life. Four years ago, Obama based his campaign on hope, which has made him even more vulnerable today. Regardless of his achievements, which certainly are not negligible — from reforming the health care system to the elimination of bin Laden — he created expectations that he has not fulfilled. He is by no means responsible for the world economic crisis, but the contrast between his epic speeches and the current grim reality is simply too big.
The creation of “super PAC” groups has reinforced the importance of money in American politics and has played out in the Republican Party’s favor. In 2008 the mobilization of energy was exactly what Obama needed, but in 2012 it risks turning against him. Has the delicate balance of wills in America, a country that is more polarized than ever, slipped toward the side of the Republicans who, sensing a possible victory, have suddenly rallied behind Romney, even though many of them still think he is a bit too soft?
There is yet another argument in Romney’s favor that mustn’t be forgotten: Doesn’t he have a “wild card” in the choice of his running mate? Will it be a Latino, a woman (or even a black woman like Condi Rice, the former national security advisor and the secretary of state during George W. Bush’s presidency)?
Might Obama substitute Hillary Clinton for Joe Biden in order to create a positive jolt in the Democratic camp? The former prime minister of the United Kingdom, Harold Wilson, used to say that a week was an eternity in politics. There are almost 20 of them before the November elections and Obama certainly is not Jimmy Carter. He remains an exceptionally charismatic candidate. Nonetheless, his reelection will be much more challenging than most Europeans believe.
Dominique Moisi is a senior advisor for the Institut Français des Relations Internationales.
And yet, as of mid-June 2012, the best analysts of American politics, regardless of their own political leanings, foresee a difficult task for President Obama. This time around, the very same logic that led to the Democrats’ return to power in 1992, after 12 years of Republican leadership in the White House, seems to be playing out in the Republicans’ favor: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Last week in Ohio, one of the key states, Obama and Romney pitted their economic platforms against one another; the two platforms are based upon antithetical concepts of recovery and growth. In European terms, Obama sounded a lot like Hollande, while Romney seemed to echo Draghi: The Democratic candidate advanced a neo-Keynesian concept of growth, based on the role of the government, whereas Romney’s concept of growth is much more liberal, in the European sense of the term. The reference to Europe is not arbitrary. Romney has accused Obama of being a “European,” ready to drive America into utter disaster. Obama’s response was to denounce Romney’s austerity policy, which according to Obama, would hobble the country.
Europeans, according to a recent study published by the Pew Institute, would reelect Barack Obama in a landslide victory if they could vote in November. But speaking objectively, Europe’s economic situation is clearly playing out in Romney’s favor. “Is Europe going to make Obama lose?” a Democrat asked me worriedly just a few days ago in New York. The chances of Europe’s economic situation making a spectacular recovery between now and November are very small. On the other hand, the risk of the situation getting even worse is very real. The European crisis is not only being closely watched by the American political elites as a decisive factor in the upcoming election, the crisis is now being anxiously monitored — and this is a new development — by the middle class, which watches the old world and wonders constantly how the European crisis will have an impact on their retirement and, more generally, their quality of life. Four years ago, Obama based his campaign on hope, which has made him even more vulnerable today. Regardless of his achievements, which certainly are not negligible — from reforming the health care system to the elimination of bin Laden — he created expectations that he has not fulfilled. He is by no means responsible for the world economic crisis, but the contrast between his epic speeches and the current grim reality is simply too big.
The creation of “super PAC” groups has reinforced the importance of money in American politics and has played out in the Republican Party’s favor. In 2008 the mobilization of energy was exactly what Obama needed, but in 2012 it risks turning against him. Has the delicate balance of wills in America, a country that is more polarized than ever, slipped toward the side of the Republicans who, sensing a possible victory, have suddenly rallied behind Romney, even though many of them still think he is a bit too soft?
There is yet another argument in Romney’s favor that mustn’t be forgotten: Doesn’t he have a “wild card” in the choice of his running mate? Will it be a Latino, a woman (or even a black woman like Condi Rice, the former national security advisor and the secretary of state during George W. Bush’s presidency)?
Might Obama substitute Hillary Clinton for Joe Biden in order to create a positive jolt in the Democratic camp? The former prime minister of the United Kingdom, Harold Wilson, used to say that a week was an eternity in politics. There are almost 20 of them before the November elections and Obama certainly is not Jimmy Carter. He remains an exceptionally charismatic candidate. Nonetheless, his reelection will be much more challenging than most Europeans believe.
Dominique Moisi is a senior advisor for the Institut Français des Relations Internationales.