President Obama’s victory shows the changing landscape of US
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:21 pmA Man For All Seasons
President Obama’s victory shows the changing landscape of US society and politics
Gautam Adhikari
Washington:
America has done it again. For the second time in a row, it has elected a man of the future as its president. In Barack Obama, Americans once again saw a leader who would lead the country best in an era in which tolerance, integrity and vision would overcome hate, divisiveness and fear. He is their man for all seasons.
President Obama won convincingly by securing a narrow majority in the popular vote as well as a wide majority of electoral votes. Americans have given him a mandate to lead the country at a time of economic uncertainty when they would like to continue with a steady hand at the wheel. But, more importantly, a majority of people have once again demonstrated that they understand these changing times, when their country is evolving into a multicultural and multi-ethnic society.
Obama’s victory is a logical outcome of the movement over the last half-century of culture and demography in America. It’s the changing profile of the American population along with evolving cultural preferences that seems to have played a key role in this election. When he won in 2008, Obama rode an anti-Bush, anti-war wave. But he crafted a winning coalition of minority voters plus a majority of women, white liberals and most of those under 30.
That coalition stood by him yesterday. Recent immigrants of all shades and origins, African-Americans and Hispanics in particular, voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Pre-election opinion polls and exit polls showed him leading by huge margins over Romney among minorities, voters younger than 30, and women. Among middle-aged white men and those 65 or older, Romney led. Obama’s coalition, which represents the future face of America, triumphed Tuesday night.
Thanks to an overall openness towards immigration and proactive policies in promoting minority participation in society and politics, the sheer speed of
America’s transformation in its demographic and cultural profile since the 1960s has been unmatched by any other society. If you rode a time machine from 1960 into 2012, today’s America, starting with its African-American president and the wide array of hues among its people, would appear quite weird.
Inevitably, those who can’t deal with that speed of change and those who are less culturally flexible, feel anxious, often fearful, of a changing society. Many of them rallied around Romney’s campaign, saying they wanted to “Take Back America”. They form the core of today’s Republican Party.
Now comes the difficult bit. A bitter election campaign has left the US sharply polarised. In his victory speech, President Obama reached out to all those who voted against him and said he would even ask for Governor Romney’s cooperation. Well, Romney will lose his position as the presumed leader of the Republican Party now that he has lost, and never really had more than the lukewarm support of his party’s base. The party will have to do serious soul-searching. The radical, exclusionary and fear-fanning approach of the Republican base has failed to motivate the voters. The question is whether the party can or will change with an eye to the future.
It is an important question that will haunt not just the Republicans but will worry everyone in America. Yesterday, Republicans retained their control of the House of Representatives. Within the house, Republican radicals dominate. They have so far refused to cooperate with President Obama in virtually anything. Will they change?
A so-called fiscal cliff is fast approaching. By January, the Obama administration and the US Congress will have to hammer out a deal to prevent the disastrous outcome of an earlier temporary deal, under which spending cuts will automatically apply across the budgetary board while Bush-era tax breaks will lapse. That might push the US back into recession and will be a setback for the world economy.
Obama will have to rapidly find a way to make a deal with the radicals to avoid such an outcome. The US economy is clearly on an upward path right now. Unemployment is declining steadily, consumer confidence as well as spending are up, the manufacturing sector has recovered to a large extent, the housing sector is showing every sign of coming out of gloom, and the stock market is almost twice as high as it was when Obama took office nearly four years ago.
For the recovery to continue, high-minded cooperation on both sides of the political divide will have to replace the bitterness of the last four years when the sole and declared objective of the radicals in the Republican Party was to make Obama a one-term president. Now that he has just won a second lease, will the situation be any different? Or will Americans, and the world, again have to endure political gridlock?
President Obama has plenty of charisma. He can also be a deal maker. He has now won a clear mandate. He has to use it all to the best of his ability starting today.
For he has demonstrated resoundingly that his victory in 2008 was not a fluke. He clearly represents the whole of America for that’s what the American people want as they have twice shown. He must now show that he deserves their support, not just as an African-American who happened to chance into leadership, but as a true leader of the country as it is today and will be in the foreseeable future.
The writer is former executive editor of the Times of India.
America Mandalised
Barack Obama stitches together a rainbow coalition of voters for four more years
Following a bruising election campaign, Americans have given four more years to President Barack Obama. While the Obama camp ran up a comfortable electoral college advantage, a 48%-50% split of the popular vote exemplified how close the contest really was. That Obama saw off his Republican challenger Mitt Romney by a margin smaller than he had received four years ago, is unprecedented for a US president in recent history. But what really stood out is the strategic campaign that the Obama camp ran.
Faced with a strong Republican headwind as well as signs of ‘buyer’s remorse’ within his own Democratic flock, Obama focussed on battleground states from New Hampshire to Nevada to shore up his numbers. In addition to its proven coalition of youth, women, blacks, Hispanics and other minorities such as Indian-Americans – who turned out in huge numbers to vote blue – the Democratic campaign also reached out to discrete demographic constituencies such as gays and lesbians. The strategy worked. Despite securing just 40% of the white vote, Obama took key swing states like Florida where non-whites voted for him in even greater numbers than in 2008. Obama was propelled over the finishing line by a remarkable consolidation of marginalised voters in the American electorate. Could it be that the US is witnessing the first signs of its own Mandalisation of politics?
On his part, Romney’s undoing can be attributed to his failure to consistently deliver an inclusive vision of America. He courted the Republican right wing during the primaries but switched back to the centre in the run-up to election day. With Republicans holding on to their House majority, a gridlocked Congress will greet Obama from day one of his second innings. And given the pending policy challenges – from a yawning fiscal deficit and rebalancing taxes to creating jobs and fighting climate change – Obama would have to devote considerable energy to building consensus. Prolonged policy paralysis akin to the kind plaguing the Indian Parliament would stymie the American recovery, further deepening the global economic imbroglio.
For India, this US presidential election was unique in that both candidates recognised New Delhi’s strategic importance for American foreign policy. True, Obama’s protectionist rhetoric against outsourcing remains a cause for concern. But if he is to revive the American economy and focus on growth he can ill afford to pander to such populist sentiments. An India-US partnership, covering a gamut of sectors from defence and trade to science and technology, can be the single biggest transformative relationship of the 21st century. As Obama begins his second tenure, he would do well to fulfil this promise.
When Obama won the 2008 election and became America’s first African-American president, hopes had soared about how his presidency would be transformational, not just for the US but also for the world. Clearly, expectations are more downbeat this time. Recent polls show that only 39% of Americans believe that the economy is improving. Nevertheless they have kept the faith with Obama. This suggests that they credit the Obama camp’s narrative that the economy was brought to the brink of collapse by George Bush’s Republican administration, and Obama saved it from going under.
This is valuable capital for Obama to build on, as he’s freed from looking over his shoulder and can concentrate on legacy issues during his second and last term. For that to happen, however, he must overcome not only political gridlock but also his own hesitancy and lack of decisiveness, which includes his tendency to resort to populist cant such as over outsourcing.
Two actions, in particular, could have ripple effects across the world and ensure that Obama’s becomes a truly historic presidency. One, he could act to resuscitate the American economy in his second term and make it the powerhouse it once was. Two, the economic downturn coupled with political gridlock made any action on global warming unmentionable during his first term. But the Democrats, unlike the Republicans do accept the reality of global warming. And the world cannot combat global warming unless America comes on board. Obama’s second term conceivably might see America taking on the scourge of global warming that feeds super-storms like Hurricane Sandy, uniting humanity on a planetary scale.
President Obama’s victory shows the changing landscape of US society and politics
Gautam Adhikari
Washington:
America has done it again. For the second time in a row, it has elected a man of the future as its president. In Barack Obama, Americans once again saw a leader who would lead the country best in an era in which tolerance, integrity and vision would overcome hate, divisiveness and fear. He is their man for all seasons.
President Obama won convincingly by securing a narrow majority in the popular vote as well as a wide majority of electoral votes. Americans have given him a mandate to lead the country at a time of economic uncertainty when they would like to continue with a steady hand at the wheel. But, more importantly, a majority of people have once again demonstrated that they understand these changing times, when their country is evolving into a multicultural and multi-ethnic society.
Obama’s victory is a logical outcome of the movement over the last half-century of culture and demography in America. It’s the changing profile of the American population along with evolving cultural preferences that seems to have played a key role in this election. When he won in 2008, Obama rode an anti-Bush, anti-war wave. But he crafted a winning coalition of minority voters plus a majority of women, white liberals and most of those under 30.
That coalition stood by him yesterday. Recent immigrants of all shades and origins, African-Americans and Hispanics in particular, voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Pre-election opinion polls and exit polls showed him leading by huge margins over Romney among minorities, voters younger than 30, and women. Among middle-aged white men and those 65 or older, Romney led. Obama’s coalition, which represents the future face of America, triumphed Tuesday night.
Thanks to an overall openness towards immigration and proactive policies in promoting minority participation in society and politics, the sheer speed of
America’s transformation in its demographic and cultural profile since the 1960s has been unmatched by any other society. If you rode a time machine from 1960 into 2012, today’s America, starting with its African-American president and the wide array of hues among its people, would appear quite weird.
Inevitably, those who can’t deal with that speed of change and those who are less culturally flexible, feel anxious, often fearful, of a changing society. Many of them rallied around Romney’s campaign, saying they wanted to “Take Back America”. They form the core of today’s Republican Party.
Now comes the difficult bit. A bitter election campaign has left the US sharply polarised. In his victory speech, President Obama reached out to all those who voted against him and said he would even ask for Governor Romney’s cooperation. Well, Romney will lose his position as the presumed leader of the Republican Party now that he has lost, and never really had more than the lukewarm support of his party’s base. The party will have to do serious soul-searching. The radical, exclusionary and fear-fanning approach of the Republican base has failed to motivate the voters. The question is whether the party can or will change with an eye to the future.
It is an important question that will haunt not just the Republicans but will worry everyone in America. Yesterday, Republicans retained their control of the House of Representatives. Within the house, Republican radicals dominate. They have so far refused to cooperate with President Obama in virtually anything. Will they change?
A so-called fiscal cliff is fast approaching. By January, the Obama administration and the US Congress will have to hammer out a deal to prevent the disastrous outcome of an earlier temporary deal, under which spending cuts will automatically apply across the budgetary board while Bush-era tax breaks will lapse. That might push the US back into recession and will be a setback for the world economy.
Obama will have to rapidly find a way to make a deal with the radicals to avoid such an outcome. The US economy is clearly on an upward path right now. Unemployment is declining steadily, consumer confidence as well as spending are up, the manufacturing sector has recovered to a large extent, the housing sector is showing every sign of coming out of gloom, and the stock market is almost twice as high as it was when Obama took office nearly four years ago.
For the recovery to continue, high-minded cooperation on both sides of the political divide will have to replace the bitterness of the last four years when the sole and declared objective of the radicals in the Republican Party was to make Obama a one-term president. Now that he has just won a second lease, will the situation be any different? Or will Americans, and the world, again have to endure political gridlock?
President Obama has plenty of charisma. He can also be a deal maker. He has now won a clear mandate. He has to use it all to the best of his ability starting today.
For he has demonstrated resoundingly that his victory in 2008 was not a fluke. He clearly represents the whole of America for that’s what the American people want as they have twice shown. He must now show that he deserves their support, not just as an African-American who happened to chance into leadership, but as a true leader of the country as it is today and will be in the foreseeable future.
The writer is former executive editor of the Times of India.
America Mandalised
Barack Obama stitches together a rainbow coalition of voters for four more years
Following a bruising election campaign, Americans have given four more years to President Barack Obama. While the Obama camp ran up a comfortable electoral college advantage, a 48%-50% split of the popular vote exemplified how close the contest really was. That Obama saw off his Republican challenger Mitt Romney by a margin smaller than he had received four years ago, is unprecedented for a US president in recent history. But what really stood out is the strategic campaign that the Obama camp ran.
Faced with a strong Republican headwind as well as signs of ‘buyer’s remorse’ within his own Democratic flock, Obama focussed on battleground states from New Hampshire to Nevada to shore up his numbers. In addition to its proven coalition of youth, women, blacks, Hispanics and other minorities such as Indian-Americans – who turned out in huge numbers to vote blue – the Democratic campaign also reached out to discrete demographic constituencies such as gays and lesbians. The strategy worked. Despite securing just 40% of the white vote, Obama took key swing states like Florida where non-whites voted for him in even greater numbers than in 2008. Obama was propelled over the finishing line by a remarkable consolidation of marginalised voters in the American electorate. Could it be that the US is witnessing the first signs of its own Mandalisation of politics?
On his part, Romney’s undoing can be attributed to his failure to consistently deliver an inclusive vision of America. He courted the Republican right wing during the primaries but switched back to the centre in the run-up to election day. With Republicans holding on to their House majority, a gridlocked Congress will greet Obama from day one of his second innings. And given the pending policy challenges – from a yawning fiscal deficit and rebalancing taxes to creating jobs and fighting climate change – Obama would have to devote considerable energy to building consensus. Prolonged policy paralysis akin to the kind plaguing the Indian Parliament would stymie the American recovery, further deepening the global economic imbroglio.
For India, this US presidential election was unique in that both candidates recognised New Delhi’s strategic importance for American foreign policy. True, Obama’s protectionist rhetoric against outsourcing remains a cause for concern. But if he is to revive the American economy and focus on growth he can ill afford to pander to such populist sentiments. An India-US partnership, covering a gamut of sectors from defence and trade to science and technology, can be the single biggest transformative relationship of the 21st century. As Obama begins his second tenure, he would do well to fulfil this promise.
When Obama won the 2008 election and became America’s first African-American president, hopes had soared about how his presidency would be transformational, not just for the US but also for the world. Clearly, expectations are more downbeat this time. Recent polls show that only 39% of Americans believe that the economy is improving. Nevertheless they have kept the faith with Obama. This suggests that they credit the Obama camp’s narrative that the economy was brought to the brink of collapse by George Bush’s Republican administration, and Obama saved it from going under.
This is valuable capital for Obama to build on, as he’s freed from looking over his shoulder and can concentrate on legacy issues during his second and last term. For that to happen, however, he must overcome not only political gridlock but also his own hesitancy and lack of decisiveness, which includes his tendency to resort to populist cant such as over outsourcing.
Two actions, in particular, could have ripple effects across the world and ensure that Obama’s becomes a truly historic presidency. One, he could act to resuscitate the American economy in his second term and make it the powerhouse it once was. Two, the economic downturn coupled with political gridlock made any action on global warming unmentionable during his first term. But the Democrats, unlike the Republicans do accept the reality of global warming. And the world cannot combat global warming unless America comes on board. Obama’s second term conceivably might see America taking on the scourge of global warming that feeds super-storms like Hurricane Sandy, uniting humanity on a planetary scale.