As the proverb states, we each need a little luck now and again. This is increasingly pertinent for the present incumbent of the Oval Office. Despite inheriting the harshest fiscal conditions since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the President’s personal stock and fortune may be in the process of changing.
To analysts, Obama’s ‘Yes We Can’ rhetoric was always to ultimately prove vacuous. Closing Guantánamo Bay for example, was always to be beset with legal difficulties – one may propose a utopian wish list, yet when employing realism, wishes fail to manifest as reality. The electorate was swept up in fervour and neglected politics as an art of compromise. Reality hit in the form of the 2010 midterm elections, with the Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives. The rise of Tea Party affiliated candidates set the tone for the contemporary conservative assault upon the Obama Presidency.
Ironically, this Presidency, which has been characterised as more reactive than proactive, rose to the midterm challenge. Accused of being foreign policy lite, Obama ordered Navy SEALs to storm a compound in Abbottabad, killing Osama bin Laden. In the mainstream, foreign policy has undergone a strategic shift, increasing the focus upon the Asia-Pacific region, an educated response to counter the Chinese dragon. Further, there are signs of economic initiatives coming to fruition. Unemployment is falling in line with an ABC News/Washington Post poll giving the President an increased approval rating of 53%. However, it is the search for a seemingly radical right-wing GOP nominee that could confer four more years upon Obama.
Whilst I appreciate it is trivial to go in to bat for Jon Huntsman retrospectively, it is worth analysing his credentials, if only to highlight the shift toward social conservatism amongst the Republican ranks. Huntsman possesses top foreign policy credentials, speaking Mandarin and holding the office of U.S. Ambassador to China under Obama, which has led to pathetic accusations of treachery. Being vilified for intellect and ambition is simply unacceptable. As is a video appearing on YouTube showing the then Ambassador at a rally in Beijing being asked, “[do] you want to see China in chaos?” Chinese nationalists accuse Huntsman of trying to instigate an Arab Spring style revolution; there is no evidence to verify such allegations.
In concentrating on New Hampshire, bypassing Iowa, his campaign missed all the early coverage; even those garnering negative press were receiving a greater proportion of airtime. In portraying himself as a fashionable moderate he was never going to excite the base. In suspending his campaign Huntsman fired a significant parting shot, “the current toxic form of our political discourse doesn’t help our cause.” Huntsman’s downfall is a reflection of the wider Republican Party – there is no place for liberal republicanism in 2012.
So what of Obama’s potential challengers? Rick Santorum is a big government conservative who boasts a voting record similar to that of former President George W. Bush. The key to Santorum’s success to date is to resort to classic conservative populism, namely God and jobs. He has already proved he can attract religious conservatives, especially evangelicals. This tactic proved fruitful for Pat Buchanan in 1996 and Mike Huckabee in 2008.
Santorum is ardently anti-abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, while few hold a stronger stance on gay rights, having compared gay sex to ‘man on dog.’ This is surely enough to alienate those who place a high value upon liberty? Santorum has long opposed NAFTA, instead advocating government intervention, specifically in the manufacturing industry. Yet, any aspirations to return to the days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereby 40% of Americans were employed in this sector are improbable. Today, the manufacturing sector employs 10% of the workforce, a consequence of innovation and increasing productivity. Despite winning Iowa on a recount, his message will not transcend across all states.
Ron Paul, the ‘maverick libertarian’ would demolish the federal government and withdraw all U.S. troops overseas. Whilst neither may be the worst policy ever, it is hugely idealist, despite the former playing well with those dissatisfied with the federal government failing American taxpayers. Paul argues that America was right to resist Communism, but the more recent interventions (namely the 9/11 wars) have come at too high a price. Whilst he is anti-gay marriage and pro-life he will attract swing voters, who despite not agreeing with his stance respect the fact that a Paul Presidency would leave them free from statist interventionism. I would argue that his eccentricities suggest that he is not Presidential material.
Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, is a wily operator and something of an anomaly. Here is a candidate who stands just as much chance of crashing and burning as winning. Bizarre comments such as stating that the Palestinian people are ‘invented,’ and seek the destruction of Israel, not only run contrary to official U.S. policy and wholly discount the Palestinian Arab nationalist sentiment of 1834 resulting in the revolt against Ottoman rule, but do little to sway an erudite Jewish lobby.
Brash rhetoric aside, the Gingrich campaign has found favour in exploiting the ‘unnatural’ big business and cultural conservative white working and middle class tensions within the Republican Party. These are reluctant Tea Party Republicans who are too socially conservative to vote for Romney. Thus Gingrich is inflaming the class divide and running on the corruption of financial power. Hitherto, ‘vote for me, I’m not an elitist, but Mitt is.’
This is hard for ‘moderate Mitt’ to counter. The long time front-runner is now feeling the heat, being portrayed as so wealthy he is out of touch with the everyday needs and concerns of the American electorate. In stating he has created over 100,000 jobs, he is failing to shake the notion that it is ultimately for the benefit of the few. Gingrich’s attacks come at a time when the average employee pay vs. CEO pay has shifted from 42 to 1, to more than 300 to 1, with one in ten families now in need of food stamps to survive.
Romney has not helped himself by allowing his tax bill saga to manifest. His tax return illustrates that he is paying 14% tax on earnings of over $21 million, lower taxes than the average American. What is more, in this era of media communication Romney lacks charisma, Gingrich is the prime example of how far ‘charisma’ can take you.
If nothing you have read excites you, you are not alone. This is a field vying to embody the most radical right-wing credentials, thereby offering a real alternative to the President. Alternatively, seemingly losing touch with reality. If this was not encouraging enough for the President, it is apparent that Congress is less popular, with the electorate seemingly placing the blame upon the Republicans for causing gridlock in Washington. The great irony for the Republican field could yet be that this is an election of economic vision, who can get America back to work and prospering again? If Obama’s economic policies continue to show signs of improvement in the second quarter, then regardless of a drive to the right, the best man for the job may already hold it.