The US Elections

Four years ago, this columnist was probably one of the most enthusiastic pro-Obama platforms you could find. From the day I read The Audacity of Hope, and as the implications of a historic Barack Obama presidency dawned, my support for Obama became unqualified and resolute! Ironically, I had started off supporting Hillary Clinton rather than Obama when the Democratic primaries started, until I read Obama’s books and switched my support based not just on racial affinity, but for the inspiring and bold ideas enunciated in those books. By and large, I’ve been disappointed by Obama (and Clinton!). I do not know what he stands for! Obama has attempted to run a presidency that takes no risks. I recall that even during the period leading to the passage of his signature legislation – the healthcare reform – Obama passed the “transaction risks” to the House Democratic Caucus as he tried to minimise any negative impact on him if the legislation failed. It was the same attitude (or is it a strategy?) during the mid-term elections as he tried to distance himself and his presidency from the fortunes of his party’s congressional candidates, resulting in the famous “shellacking” which his party received resulting in the loss of the House of Representatives to the Republicans. It is in the area of foreign policy that Obama’s strategy has caused the most harm, in my view, resulting in a more chaotic global political and security environment. America has been right or wrong many times in history, but never has the world been unclear about what the US stood for! Under Obama, one cannot quite say the same. Obama has taken the strategy of passing the risks of global policymaking to others whenever the outcome was not predictable, resulting in a situation in which American leadership has been missing at critical moments. There are many illustrations of this, especially as the so-called Arab Spring developed. The US has not sufficiently stood by its values in Egypt (until after the recent Libyan debacle exposed the folly of that strategy) seemingly willing to tolerate marginalisation of women and religious minorities. Across the Middle East and North Africa, the US ignored the obvious presence of Al Qaeda and other terrorist-inclined forces seeking to gain ascendancy in the newly “liberated” countries again until the explosion in Libya consumed an American ambassador and three US embassy officials. Iran is four years closer to a nuclear bomb as Obama appeared to send mixed signals to Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs about America’s resoluteness to prevent an Iranian bomb. When the citizens of Iran protested on the streets after a fraudulent election, Obama hedged his bets, and the Iranian regime crushed its protesters! Pakistan continues to play tricks with the US, collecting billions of dollars in US aid and yet acting like the US were an enemy! The Egyptians do the same, and the newly elected Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, has visited China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, while Egyptians have heckled and booed Hillary Clinton when she visited Cairo! Even in Nigeria, the US seemed to hedge its bets on Boko Haram! I also am quite uncomfortable with Obama’s social policies. I often wonder whether Obama, Clinton and other US liberals believe it is possible to build a successful society solely on the basis of homosexuality, abortion, welfare and taxing the rich! Surely, society must be built on more substantive values! What are those substantive values which these liberals believe America must be built upon? It is impossible to tell. Now the US Democrats have indeed taken the unprecedented step of taking out any reference to God from their party’s platform, a final confirmation perhaps that their vision of society, despite occasional pretensions, is one in which faith plays no part! Already, it is possible to detect that the next liberal agenda in the US (once gay marriage is out of the way!) is likely to be legalising marijuana! On their part, the Republicans have not fared much better! They have often acted as though they preferred that Obama fail, rather than do anything to assist in prompting recovery of the US economy, at some point looking like a nasty party that just said “No!” Often, their positions were just plain unreasonable and there are elements within the party who really seemed like racists who would go to any lengths to make sure a black man failed as president. However, the Republicans are different from Obama in one important respect – we always know where they stand! And I suspect that some of their values are a more sustainable basis of organising society – enterprise, a strong economy, an America that leads in the world, an opportunity society and strong relationships with allies. As the Americans go to vote next Tuesday, the choice before them is quite clear. Obama seems to want to move the US towards a more European welfare society with higher taxes, lower faith and more social safety nets. The Republicans are strongly resisting that journey and want to promote enterprise, individual responsibility, lower taxes and a traditional view of US society. Four years ago, I strongly endorsed Barack Obama. This time, I abstain!