Obama Campaigns against “Big Business”
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 9 January 2012
by Pierre-Yves Dugua (link to original)
(France) on 9 January 2012
by Pierre-Yves Dugua (link to original)
Translated from
by Alisha Karmali.
Edited by Louis Standish.
The totally unexpected departure of the White House Chief of State William Daley confirms the anti-business tone that Barack Obama has adopted in recent months. Daley was recruited about a year ago precisely to convince the business world that the White House was not their enemy. However, the policy of the outstretched hand has remained symbolic. The president’s political discourse has become one of a candidate who has decided to play a middle-class defender under attack by “big business.”
This is primarily a way for Obama to shore up the demobilized and disappointed electorate on his left. It is also a way to respond to the anger of Americans regarding their economic difficulties. This anger was channeled well through the tea party in the congressional elections of 2010. Obama wants to win the legislative and presidential elections in November 2012.
In his public speeches, Barack Obama regularly accuses employers of being interested in blocking his reforms — in finance, health or pollution — which is true.
This past weekend, Obama challenged companies to relocate their jobs to the United States. He once again asked for salary increases for civil servants. He does it all to reassure unions. Otherwise, he blocked the approval of the Keystone pipeline, to flatter the environmentalists who threatened to abandon him. He is especially enforcing the increasingly popular idea that the rich should pay more taxes, because their wealth has increased faster than the standard of living of Americans in the middle and bottom of the social ladder.
The American federal tax system is already very progressive and allows half of the less wealthy population to not pay income taxes. The important thing is to play on images and perceptions: find scapegoats to explain why Obama could not achieve the change he has promised after three years in office.
It is clear that Barack Obama is getting ready to face Mitt Romney in November. Romney is without doubt the candidate of the business and finance world. The former Republican governor of Massachusetts thinks those who have money and take risks to create business and jobs, or buy troubled companies, have the right to enrich themselves. This is what he himself did.
This view is contrary to the new social-democratic discourse of the White House: The poor remain poor because of the rich, who exploit and abuse the capitalist system.
Daley’s departure was due to the poor relations of the [wealthy] with the Democratic leaders of Congress. And for good reason, the Democratic leaders of Congress are actually “anti-business” themselves.
We have to expect a classic campaign opposing the right, defenders of free enterprise, and the left, advocates of wealth redistribution. The urgent debate on the reduction of public spending and debt is pushed back to next year.
This is primarily a way for Obama to shore up the demobilized and disappointed electorate on his left. It is also a way to respond to the anger of Americans regarding their economic difficulties. This anger was channeled well through the tea party in the congressional elections of 2010. Obama wants to win the legislative and presidential elections in November 2012.
In his public speeches, Barack Obama regularly accuses employers of being interested in blocking his reforms — in finance, health or pollution — which is true.
This past weekend, Obama challenged companies to relocate their jobs to the United States. He once again asked for salary increases for civil servants. He does it all to reassure unions. Otherwise, he blocked the approval of the Keystone pipeline, to flatter the environmentalists who threatened to abandon him. He is especially enforcing the increasingly popular idea that the rich should pay more taxes, because their wealth has increased faster than the standard of living of Americans in the middle and bottom of the social ladder.
The American federal tax system is already very progressive and allows half of the less wealthy population to not pay income taxes. The important thing is to play on images and perceptions: find scapegoats to explain why Obama could not achieve the change he has promised after three years in office.
It is clear that Barack Obama is getting ready to face Mitt Romney in November. Romney is without doubt the candidate of the business and finance world. The former Republican governor of Massachusetts thinks those who have money and take risks to create business and jobs, or buy troubled companies, have the right to enrich themselves. This is what he himself did.
This view is contrary to the new social-democratic discourse of the White House: The poor remain poor because of the rich, who exploit and abuse the capitalist system.
Daley’s departure was due to the poor relations of the [wealthy] with the Democratic leaders of Congress. And for good reason, the Democratic leaders of Congress are actually “anti-business” themselves.
We have to expect a classic campaign opposing the right, defenders of free enterprise, and the left, advocates of wealth redistribution. The urgent debate on the reduction of public spending and debt is pushed back to next year.