Obama 2: Diverse aspirations coalesce

Guest post by Ambassador Neelam Deo, Director, Gateway House

It looks like winning is all that matters in the first-past-the-post system in the U.S., so much so that it does not matter precisely how President Obama won a second term as the President of the United States. But his narrow victory with a lead of only 2% of the popular vote, out of a voting public which has declined from 131 million (in the 2008 election) to 117 million, reflects the disenchantment and polarization of the electorate.

Winning may well turn out to have been the easy part. The President has to work with the relatively unchanged Congressional configuration – the cause of the paralysis in decision-making in the past few years.

Obama must move quickly to dispel the disappointments of his first term which made the election such a nail biter- disappointments both at home in America and abroad. For that he must craft an agenda that is adequately bipartisan to win over enough Republicans in the House and Senate to pass legislation addressing the country’s growing annual budgetary deficit, the massive national debt and the stagnant economy to generate more employment at home so that the American economy does not continue to be a drag on global growth.

President Obama has won an important victory with more than 30 Electoral votes to spare, partly because of the superb fund raising and mobilisation of votes that became his hallmark in 2008. Obama also benefited from the gaffes of his challenger – particularly remarks Romney made disparaging 47% of voters as non tax-paying Obama supporters and therefore not worthy of Republican attention. This may have ensured that 60% of the young, especially the unemployed who had sympathized with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, voted Democrat.

The changing American demography works in favour of the Democrats. In particular, Obama won the support of 70% of Hispanics, whose percentage in the population has grown from 9 to 10 in just the last 4 years. He did this by introducing legislation that enabled the children of illegal immigrants to be entitled to such benefits as scholarships for education and move ahead in the queue for citizenship.

At the same time, the Democrats cannot overlook the fact that Caucasians still make up 73% of the electorate, but only 38% supported Obama. This, despite 55% of all women voting Democrat, though only 42% of white women voters were among them. Obama would have received even less white support if not for the rampant misogyny of Republican plans to curb the right to abortion, receive free contraception. This, along with the Republican castigation of  victims of rape repelled many women, especially the highly educated.

Despite Obama’s massive financial infusions to rescue investment banks and big business in general, the corporate sector supported Romney and more importantly massively funded his election campaign. Some balance was provided by the support for Obama of well known and respected businessmen such as Warren Buffet and Hollywood celebrites such as Bruce Springsteen who contributed funds and made appearances at his rallies. Together both candidates have spent upwards a whopping $3 billion in this election.

As expected, African Americans voted overwhelmingly in favour of the President despite the knowledge that their problems remained largely unaddressed in a stagnant economy. Still the more inclusive rhetoric of the Democrats on social issues including gay marriage pulled in those votes. The President’s sincere and efficient response to the devastation caused by Super storm Sandy won him support even from committed Republicans. Most intriguingly Obama won 69% of the Jewish vote despite the menacing tone of the Israeli President and Romney’s hard line position on Iran’s nuclear programme.

The non-voting rest of the world is relieved that a Romney breathing fire and brimstone against Russia, China, Iran, and Syria is not in charge of the mighty American military and economy. Apart from the comfort of the familiar, Obama has won respect for being steadfast in the face of unseemly pressure from the Republicans and Israelis and American Jewish lobbies. Now he must be some more steadfast by refusing to blatantly interfere in Arab affairs while genuinely promoting the Israeli- Palestinian peace process.

India will be interested to see how a new Democratic administration functions in Asia, especially in fleshing out and implementing the “pivot to Asia”, under a Secretary of State other than Hilary Clinton who has already announced her departure. While there is some unease about the exit of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, India can also take comfort from a more realistic American appreciation of the fragility of the power structure in Pakistan which should preclude indulgence of terrorist activities against Indian targets.

A more positive agenda also awaits the two countries in the nuclear, defense, trade and education areas. This is also an opportunity for Government of India to infuse new energy into the bilateral relationship.

(This article originally appeared at Gateway House and has been republished with their approval. All views mentioned in the article are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions or positions of USINPAC in any manner.)

Obama or Romney: Who’s the man for India?

Guest blog by Madhu Nair

Many would say it hardly matters considering the Presidential debates never saw India figure even once. In just about four days the war will come to an end and the world will be introduced to the new President. Will it be Obama or Romney is a question better left for time and the voters to answer.

For both the candidates it’s never been an easy walk so far. Romney has had his share of issues. His handling of personal taxes, his association with Bain Capital, the unfortunately leaked video, his lack of clarity on foreign affairs and the frequent bloopers had Team Obama label him as a plutocrat who could be anybody but the President. Obama too has fallen short of being given a definite second term. He has already drawn flak for his inability to reduce unemployment. A lingering economy, a fragile market, his mishandling of the Libya and Syria crisis and the failed promises made on hope and change seems to have the odds against him.

So what’s the mood in India? Though the election result does not appear to give sleepless nights to the biggies in Delhi, there is a certain degree of excitement keeping in mind the amount of importance a President of the United States has in the world. Manasi Kakatkar, a Master in International Security and Economic Policy from the University of Maryland says, “Obama has apparently slighted the Indians both by not mentioning them enough and then mentioning them only in reference to reducing outsourcing of work. But from a long term perspective, a second Obama Presidency will be beneficial to India both economically and geo-strategically. Obama holds more promise when it comes to dealing strictly with Pakistan and terrorism emanating from there. Economically as well, he is on the right track to securing a strong economic future for the US, which consequently means better trade and economic gains for India in the long run.

Shakti Shetty of Mid-Day too seems to echo the same sentiment though he maintains that the election results would not bother India much. “Going by the popular opinion, Obama turned out to be quite tepid compared to the bonhomie his Republican predecessor helped create. And there was always noise on the outsourcing front which obviously hurt the Indian ITES sector. On the brighter side, Obama reached out to the public during his celebrated visit, including the Parliament. But the critics always maintained that Obama provided more lip service than needed. He didn’t get too much time to express his admiration for India. At least not in practical terms. Romney may seem like a safer bet but he doesn’t have any precedent and that might work in his favor. Maybe it won’t. After all, he could have the beginner’s luck if he wins the ultimate poll.”

The view further becomes a bit of a personal juggernaut when it comes to the popular Common Man of India. Shybu Khan, a keen observer of US-India relations likes to keep things close to his heart. He says, “I would be unfruitful to think that the American presidential elections won’t affect us, and I am certainly not doing that, but the first challenge I encountered was deciding on a favorite, both for practical as well as selfish reasons.” He further elaborates, “Mitt Romney seems like a good man with good ideas and offers an alternative to what Barack Obama has expressed thus far – and that is a good thing. But in a world that we live in today, continuity and experience edges out flamboyance and experimentation. Storm Sandy – if handled adeptly — could act as a positive wave that convinces the voters and allows Obama his full term to truly perform and hopefully say, “Yes, he did.”

So the general view still tries to balance itself between the promising Democrat and the ambitious Republican. With the recent polls showing a tough contest between the two the game is evenly poised. The candidates have fought with fervor and have openly ballyhooed each other with their campaigns terming each one as regressive and siding with the bad and the evil. History says that U.S. elections has mattered when it came to worldly affairs and there is no way it would choose to go otherwise – at least in the near future. What we really need is a leader who in principle is enterprising, human and respects the future of every man and woman. For now, India can only keep their fingers crossed and trust the Americans to choose the best.

Disclaimer: All views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of USINPAC.