Obama: The Chronicle of Declared Victory
Published in Les Echos
(France) on 1 October 2012
by Dominique MoÏsi (link to original)
And the next president of the United States will be... Barack Obama! On the eve of a series of televised debates that may still have some surprises in store, is it unwise to make such a prediction? No, because barring a dramatic last minute turn-around, the cause seems to be clear. Obama has not won yet, but Romney has already almost lost.
In order to win, the Republican candidate must transform the election on Nov. 6 into a negative referendum on President Obama's economic management; with an unemployment rate of around 8 percent, his task should have been easy.
The election, however, is not a vote on Obama's record, but on the identity of America. It is a double referendum that is as much about the internal identity as it is the international identity of the United States. On these two subjects, the Republican candidate is less representative of America in 2012 than his Democratic rival. The respective conventions of the two parties are an excellent illustration of this. Caucasians massively dominated the Republican convention, while the Democratic convention was infinitely more diverse, conforming to the image of America today. With a high fertility rate and immigration (legal or not) on the rise, the Hispanic population increased from 14.6 million in 1980 to 50.4 million in 2010. In the same way and during the same time period, the Asian population (particularly on the west coast) has increased from 3.8 to 14.6 million. It is estimated that at least 70 percent of Hispanics will vote for the Democratic Party, and it will, without a doubt, be the same for more than 80 percent of the African-American community. The tea party can speak of “reclaiming America,” but Barack Obama is more representative of today’s America in his “essence,” as in his manner of speaking, than Mitt Romney could ever be — nearly incapacitated by his wealth during this period of recession. Obama may be unique, but Romney is not common.
On an ideological level, the Republican Party has never been more conservative, even now when the Democratic administration is more centrist than ever. This gravitational shift to the right of center of American politics serves a Republican Party whose radicalism seems to desire an end to all the social gains made between 1930 and 1960 by Democrats as well as the Republicans. The most “left” of Democrats, disappointed by what they see as the right-wing drift of Barack Obama, will nevertheless have no trouble voting for him faced with the ultra-conservatism of Mitt Romney. In the 21st century, it is difficult to win with a platform that advocates for a return to 19th-century social standards. Hostility or mistrust of the government is one thing, but questioning the most fundamental social rights is another.
On an international level, President Romney would, in practice, probably not have a policy that is too different from that of Obama. There is still, however, a gap in rhetoric between the discourse of the Republican Party and the evolution of American public opinion. September 11 is certainly always present as a wound, but the vast majority of Americans do not want a trade war with China or a short war with Iran. After Iraq and Afghanistan and in light of the complexity of the Arab Spring, America is more tempted by the desire to protect the world than transforming it according to their own democratic ideals. Americans are less concerned with the relative decline of their country’s international status than worried about the future resident of the White House.
In this context, Mitt Romney will need some exceptional qualities to win. So far, however, he has not only been out of touch, if not anachronistic in his platform, but personally rigid. Barack Obama has certainly not convinced Americans, even if his record is more than respectable. As Vice President Joe Biden said, “Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” The key, however, is elsewhere. In 2008, the hope and mobilization of young people brought Obama to power. In 2012, seniors’ fears of losing their Medicare benefits, and more generally all forms of social protection, will keep Obama in the White House.
In order to win, the Republican candidate must transform the election on Nov. 6 into a negative referendum on President Obama's economic management; with an unemployment rate of around 8 percent, his task should have been easy.
The election, however, is not a vote on Obama's record, but on the identity of America. It is a double referendum that is as much about the internal identity as it is the international identity of the United States. On these two subjects, the Republican candidate is less representative of America in 2012 than his Democratic rival. The respective conventions of the two parties are an excellent illustration of this. Caucasians massively dominated the Republican convention, while the Democratic convention was infinitely more diverse, conforming to the image of America today. With a high fertility rate and immigration (legal or not) on the rise, the Hispanic population increased from 14.6 million in 1980 to 50.4 million in 2010. In the same way and during the same time period, the Asian population (particularly on the west coast) has increased from 3.8 to 14.6 million. It is estimated that at least 70 percent of Hispanics will vote for the Democratic Party, and it will, without a doubt, be the same for more than 80 percent of the African-American community. The tea party can speak of “reclaiming America,” but Barack Obama is more representative of today’s America in his “essence,” as in his manner of speaking, than Mitt Romney could ever be — nearly incapacitated by his wealth during this period of recession. Obama may be unique, but Romney is not common.
On an ideological level, the Republican Party has never been more conservative, even now when the Democratic administration is more centrist than ever. This gravitational shift to the right of center of American politics serves a Republican Party whose radicalism seems to desire an end to all the social gains made between 1930 and 1960 by Democrats as well as the Republicans. The most “left” of Democrats, disappointed by what they see as the right-wing drift of Barack Obama, will nevertheless have no trouble voting for him faced with the ultra-conservatism of Mitt Romney. In the 21st century, it is difficult to win with a platform that advocates for a return to 19th-century social standards. Hostility or mistrust of the government is one thing, but questioning the most fundamental social rights is another.
On an international level, President Romney would, in practice, probably not have a policy that is too different from that of Obama. There is still, however, a gap in rhetoric between the discourse of the Republican Party and the evolution of American public opinion. September 11 is certainly always present as a wound, but the vast majority of Americans do not want a trade war with China or a short war with Iran. After Iraq and Afghanistan and in light of the complexity of the Arab Spring, America is more tempted by the desire to protect the world than transforming it according to their own democratic ideals. Americans are less concerned with the relative decline of their country’s international status than worried about the future resident of the White House.
In this context, Mitt Romney will need some exceptional qualities to win. So far, however, he has not only been out of touch, if not anachronistic in his platform, but personally rigid. Barack Obama has certainly not convinced Americans, even if his record is more than respectable. As Vice President Joe Biden said, “Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” The key, however, is elsewhere. In 2008, the hope and mobilization of young people brought Obama to power. In 2012, seniors’ fears of losing their Medicare benefits, and more generally all forms of social protection, will keep Obama in the White House.