Many around the world, particularly in Europe, greeted the election of Barack Obama in 2008 with relief. His predecessor, George W. Bush was considered by some to be a warmongering, belligerent, and unintelligent president who had squandered the budget surpluses of the Clinton years and launched an increasingly unpopular war against terrorism. From the outset, the controversial circumstances surrounding his election in 2000 – not least the hanging chads of Florida – had raised questions about his legitimacy as president. Something which never truly faded away - so much so that Cuba offered to send election monitors in 2004 and 2008!
Barack Obama’s election was, in comparison, what Stanford University Professor Josef Joffe called “a moment of relief at having a US president who made it possible for the world to love his country again.” (Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2009).
Unlike Bush, Obama could claim a mandate, winning 53% of the popular vote, with accompanying majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate. Interestingly, he was the first president since John F. Kennedy (excepting the unelected Ford) to come from Congress. But, of course, the most significant fact of his election was that he was America’s first African American president. The enormity of that moment cannot be underestimated.
To win the election, however, Obama cleverly played down his ethnic background whilst simultaneously using his race to reach out to new groups of voters, particularly those below 30. In effect he ran not as an African American candidate but as a candidate who happened to be African American.
This, arguably, was the key to Obama’s success. Traditionally in America voting has been polarised between the races, with whites mostly voting for white candidates and blacks voting for black candidates where possible. This has often disadvantaged minority candidates. Obama overcame this by effectively deracialising his campaign. He skilfully utilised new media, notably the internet, and galvanised grass roots campaigning. Through an astute mix of symbolism and substance he was able to attract African American and Hispanic voters in record numbers. He also went against conventional wisdom by employing a fifty state strategy that targeted states that Democrats had written off since the backlash against civil rights legislation in the1960s, in particular the Old Confederacy states of the South. These Obama brought back into play for the Democratic Party. In the process he built a coalition of liberals, independents and disaffected Republicans, with unprecedented flows of cash.
What is too early to tell is whether Obama has created a new voting bloc comparable to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition of the 1930s that saw the Democrats dominate electoral politics for a generation. Young, Hispanic and African American voters many have turned out in huge number, but the problem Obama will have is maintaining their enthusiasm for change in 2012. Already independent voters are moving away from Obama, and his approval ratings are now below 50%. Voters also appear to be reattaching themselves to their more centrist moorings. It already looks like the Democrats will suffer significant losses in the mid-terms in November.
What is interesting is that in response Obama has effectively sought to continue the methods that guaranteed success in 2008. Since becoming president he has engaged in what some call a “permanent campaign” to shape public opinion and hold on to those who elected him. The internet has proved crucial in this, as has the continuation of grass roots campaigning. However, as Obama has discovered, conservatives have mobilised in opposition, demonstrated by the continuing popularity of right wing shock jocks, Fox News, and the burgeoning ‘Tea Party’ movement that rails against any expansion of Federal Government.
Though much of this opposition is polemicised, with accusations ranging from Obama being a socialist through to a fascist, the debate continues to highlight two fundamental problems – the lack of compromise as groups become more and more entrenched, and the narrowness of the political centre in America.
Part of Obama’s task will now be to do what the Clinton Administration skilfully did from 1994 onwards. When Clinton faced similar difficulties, he reoriented himself to the centre ideologically, undercutting Republican support.
But the biggest difficulty Obama faces is one that lies at the heart of the modern presidency: the campaign to win it requires a candidate to promise far more than he can possibly deliver.
In Obama’s case, the mismatch between words and deeds has been greater than usual. One reason has been the ferocity of a Republican opposition whose only ambition often appears to be simply is to block every piece of legislation he proposes. The other is an ever more dysfunctional system of government that makes it easy for them to do so. Obama must act quickly if he is to recover. The results in November will either prove his undoing as Republican gains make it impossible for him to continue his ambitious agenda, or they prove to be the making of his presidency.
