The Crisis Plays into Obama’s Hands
Published in Nevskoe Vremya
(Russia) on 24 October 2012
by Stanislav Tkachenko (link to original)
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney’s presidential race is one of the most exciting races of the last half-century because the candidates have taken two very clear, and virtually opposite, ideological positions. Obama is essentially a social Democrat. He believes that the government should help the poor and perform many functions that the economy is unable to do itself. Whereas Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan are classical liberals (using the meaning of the 19th century) who believe that government has no business interfering with the economy, which will sort itself out. For the first time in many decades, these two models were very clearly and interestingly presented in the election campaign.
Additionally, due to instability in the U.S. and the risk that the economic crisis may return, the role of this election has substantially increased.
I have no doubt that Obama will be the winner. He is more in line with the American society’s demand. After all, in times of crisis people tend to rely more on the government than on themselves. Of course, if the U.S. economy were relatively stable or growing rapidly, then Obama would not stand a chance. Mitt Romney is a brilliant candidate with an excellent professional team, but he would be in demand in a country with a booming economy. But currently, the U.S. has unemployment and structural problems. In simple terms, Mitt Romney is ready to perform an experiment on the American people: throw them into the water and say, "swim, guys,” without asking whether people know how to swim. In short, I believe that American voters will put their trust in Obama for the next four years, because he has more humane social-democratic policies.
The average Romney voter is someone in the upper middle class, who earns a million dollars per year for his family, and relies only on himself. Whereas Obama voters are mainly middle class or lower middle class, whose income is between $50,000 and $150,000 per year. They use social medical services, and to a large degree depend on the government, and government aid.
As for the debate, Obama’s immense international experience helped him win the last round. Mitt Romney doesn’t have strong views on foreign policy. Even with excellent advisers, he still does not have the skills that a U.S. presidential candidate should possess to discuss such complex issues. World politics have become very complicated in recent years, and there’s no place for amateurs, as Mitt Romney has shown himself to be. In the course of the presidential race, he called Russia the main external political enemy of the U.S. This is an inadequate statement that shows Romney can’t properly assess the situation.
Since Obama was clearly the overall winner of the debates (he lost in one round, and won two), we can assume that this will lead him to victory in the election. But in general, the debates don’t mean much.
Obama has a well-balanced team. Besides, he's a great leader. He's knows how to listen to people, to pick out the most valuable information from what they’re offering, and to take responsibility. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is too much of a businessman, and a very successful one at that. With such experience it’s difficult to manage a country, because in addition to competition, there are other processes involved. Such as, for example, helping the weak, which is not taken into account in any business model. Both candidates are very bright individuals: They are excellent speakers and debaters, but in professional terms Obama is stronger.
As for Russian-American relations, they will not be affected, simply because Obama wins and continues his not-very-balanced policy on the principle of: one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one step back. It’s standing in place. Russia and America have agreed on major foreign policy issues: we have an understanding on disarmament and on how to develop transatlantic security. In general, we’re adapting to each other, but the number of problem areas is growing. This applies to Syria, the former Soviet Union and energy security. Obama will defend American policy, and we will defend our policy. Consequently, the conflict will only grow.
Additionally, due to instability in the U.S. and the risk that the economic crisis may return, the role of this election has substantially increased.
I have no doubt that Obama will be the winner. He is more in line with the American society’s demand. After all, in times of crisis people tend to rely more on the government than on themselves. Of course, if the U.S. economy were relatively stable or growing rapidly, then Obama would not stand a chance. Mitt Romney is a brilliant candidate with an excellent professional team, but he would be in demand in a country with a booming economy. But currently, the U.S. has unemployment and structural problems. In simple terms, Mitt Romney is ready to perform an experiment on the American people: throw them into the water and say, "swim, guys,” without asking whether people know how to swim. In short, I believe that American voters will put their trust in Obama for the next four years, because he has more humane social-democratic policies.
The average Romney voter is someone in the upper middle class, who earns a million dollars per year for his family, and relies only on himself. Whereas Obama voters are mainly middle class or lower middle class, whose income is between $50,000 and $150,000 per year. They use social medical services, and to a large degree depend on the government, and government aid.
As for the debate, Obama’s immense international experience helped him win the last round. Mitt Romney doesn’t have strong views on foreign policy. Even with excellent advisers, he still does not have the skills that a U.S. presidential candidate should possess to discuss such complex issues. World politics have become very complicated in recent years, and there’s no place for amateurs, as Mitt Romney has shown himself to be. In the course of the presidential race, he called Russia the main external political enemy of the U.S. This is an inadequate statement that shows Romney can’t properly assess the situation.
Since Obama was clearly the overall winner of the debates (he lost in one round, and won two), we can assume that this will lead him to victory in the election. But in general, the debates don’t mean much.
Obama has a well-balanced team. Besides, he's a great leader. He's knows how to listen to people, to pick out the most valuable information from what they’re offering, and to take responsibility. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is too much of a businessman, and a very successful one at that. With such experience it’s difficult to manage a country, because in addition to competition, there are other processes involved. Such as, for example, helping the weak, which is not taken into account in any business model. Both candidates are very bright individuals: They are excellent speakers and debaters, but in professional terms Obama is stronger.
As for Russian-American relations, they will not be affected, simply because Obama wins and continues his not-very-balanced policy on the principle of: one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one step back. It’s standing in place. Russia and America have agreed on major foreign policy issues: we have an understanding on disarmament and on how to develop transatlantic security. In general, we’re adapting to each other, but the number of problem areas is growing. This applies to Syria, the former Soviet Union and energy security. Obama will defend American policy, and we will defend our policy. Consequently, the conflict will only grow.