By Ronald Austin
Barack Obama was elected in 2008 on a programme of change and prosperity. He convinced the American people that he would change the way the country was governed, reduce the deficit, create jobs and place America on a trajectory to prosperity. But the financial crisis, which was evident before he occupied the Oval Office, was so severe that it has overshadowed his plans for a better and more unified country. In fact, apart from the tumultuous passage of the Affordable Health Care Act, Obama has spent most of presidency trying to prevent the US economy from undergoing further serious deterioration.
The facts of this economic crisis are sobering, and the recession has proved as persistent as it has been damaging. It bears comparison with that of the 1930s which provoked a slump, the recovery from which was only occasioned by a devastating global conflict.
This crisis, the nature and scope of which remains under-estimated, has altered America’s fortunes and might very well lead to a major change in the global economic hierarchy. In his book Strategic Vision the former National Security Adviser to President Carter, Professor Zbigniew Brezezinski, paints a grim picture of America’s condition: the nation’s wealth has decreased from $64 trillion to $51 trilllion; 8 million jobs have been lost; mortgage foreclosures, which were 74000 in 2005 increased to 360,000 in July 2009; and the GDP contracted by 3.8%, the largest since 1945.
The tableau of economic difficulty has been the basis of the Republican attack on Obama’s tenure as President. He is portrayed as a failed President who is responsible for the pain most Americans are facing as they grapple with the challenges of day-to-day living and saving their homes. One does not have to go far to see the extent to which the crisis has generated uncertainty over employment and the capacity to meet the requirements of a reasonable life. It is a situation which would have tested a man of lesser political mettle. But Obama has proven that he is well schooled in the art of combative politics and he has fought his way to a position in this campaign where, given the circumstances, he should have been trailing in the polls, instead of the other way around. In fact, Obama is leading Romney in most of the states, including the so-called “battleground” states of Florida and Philadelphia. Obama, still only 51, a lawyer, Harvard educated like Mitt Romney, has proven that he is a quick study who has displayed a calm temperament in these troubling times. If he succeeds in being re-elected as President it is because he has made a realistic assessment of America’s condition and caused the relevant policy decisions to be implemented. The stimulus package which he got through Congress has stopped the bleeding and led to the creation of some 4 million private sector jobs in the last three years. This is in marked contrast to the situation when Obama took office and the US was shedding 750,000 jobs per month. During the last quarter the economy grew by 1.5 per cent, sluggish growth in the circumstances, but better than anything achieved by other countries in the Western world. Yet a day does not pass without the Republicans, especially Mitt Romney, pillorying Obama for America’s economic woes. It is the standard criticism of the Republican camp, notwithstanding the fact that the economic crisis has shown little respect for national borders. In fact, such is its impact that even the vaunted emerging economies of India, Brazil and China are slowing.
If Obama has so far been able to turn a difficult situation to his advantage it is because he has stolen a page or pages from the Republican playbook of the 2008 campaign. Then the Bush political strategists never allowed John Kerry to define himself and turned his admirable war record to his disadvantage. In similar terms, the Obama camp has quickly defined Mitt Romney as rich man who is out of touch with the American people and who as an official of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, was responsible for the destruction of several businesses and the shipping of jobs overseas. In short order Romney’s claim that his business experience is an advantage when it comes to the economy has been undermined. Mind you, Romney has not done himself any favours by refusing to release more than two years of his tax returns and maintaining accounts in Switzerland and the Bahamas, the first presidential candidate to do so.
But Obama has not only been trying to define Mitt Romney. He has made several proposals aimed at restoring faith in the economy. He has proposed a tax cut for the middle class, a Jobs Bill, which could create 3 million jobs, and he has been quietly trying to educate the American people about the need to put the economy on a path to long-term and sustained development. This will entail sacrifice. In contrast, Mitt Romney has offered bits and pieces of his plan for the economy. It consists primarily of the failed Bush policy of more tax cuts for the wealthy, and, when scored by the Centre for Tax Policy, raises taxes on the middle class. Taking from the middle class to give to the rich has been deemed by Barack Obama “Romney-hood,” a characterisation which has found ready resonance among America’s chattering class.
Even if one were Barack Obama’s enemy one not could help but admire the manner in which he has kept his nerve in the face of the daily provocations of the Republican right wing and the constant and deliberate misrepresentations of the Romney camp. Whenever he appears at public events one looks in vain for signs of strain, given that he has to pay attention to global events in such places as Iran and China, in addition to a Republican Party that is increasingly being controlled by its lunatic right wing. But the winning smile is always there, the easy humour, the undiminished eloquence, and the force of argument which remains at the level of policy. With approximately 90 days to go before what must be one of the transformative elections in US history, Barack Obama exudes a quiet kind of confidence. But as Harold Macmillan, the former British Prime Minister, once reminded his colleagues, a week in politics can
be a long time. Ninety days can be an
eternity.
