Show Hide image

Leader: The world cannot afford a defeat for Barack Obama

A Romney victory would greatly increase the chances of war with Iran, embolden the most reactionary elements in Israel and further accelerate climate change.

If Barack Obama has fallen short of the expectations of many of his supporters, it is partly because they were so high to begin with. During his election campaign in 2008, Mr Obama spoke lyrically of “hope” and “change” and promised a new era of post-partisan politics. His unique status as his country’s first black president encouraged the sense that the limits of the possible had been redefined. Liberals embraced him as the man who would close Guantanamo Bay, bring peace to the Middle East and slow “the rise of the oceans”.

But Mr Obama did not reckon on the recalcitrance of a Republican opposition that has sought to undermine his presidency at every turn, or the intransigence of leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Binyamin Netanyahu. Four years on from his election, Guantanamo Bay remains open, the Middle East peace process has collapsed and the oceans have continued to rise. Yet, if the initial adulation for him was excessive, then so, too, is much of the subsequent disdain.

Mr Obama entered office in more difficult circumstances than any US president since Franklin D Roosevelt. The economy was in the deepest recession in 70 years and losing jobs at a rate of 750,000 a month; the automobile industry appeared destined for bankruptcy; the US was embroiled in a ruinous and unjust war in Iraq. It was, as we said at the time of his election, “the in-box from hell”. In view of this inheritance, he has performed creditably.

Early in his presidency, he acted to prevent another Great Depression by introducing a fiscal stimulus of $787bn, a mixture of tax cuts, infrastructure projects and increased unemployment benefits. Republican claims that the stimulus was “a failure” are entirely unsupported by evidence. A study by Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to John McCain, and Alan Blinder, a former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, concluded that the policy had created or saved 2.7 million jobs and added 3.4 per cent to US GDP. The US economy has now grown for 13 consecutive quarters, a record that compares favourably with that of the austerity-fixated UK. A more appropriate criticism of the stimulus is that it was too small – yet it is doubtful that a bigger package would have passed Congress, and the final bill, 50 per cent larger in real terms than the entire New Deal, stands as a considerable achievement.

Similarly successful, as Nicky Woolf reports on page 18, was the government-led bailout of Chrysler and General Motors, an intervention dogmatically opposed by the Republicans. “Let Detroit go bankrupt,” declared Mr Obama’s opponent Mitt Romney in November 2008. Should he fail to win Ohio, a state that no Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying, that could be his epitaph.

It is in the sphere of foreign policy that Mr Obama has disappointed. While fulfilling his pledge to withdraw all US troops from Iraq, he has vastly expanded the use of predator drones in Pakistan, a form of warfare that is neither just nor efficacious. In the Middle East, he has been con­sistently outmanoeuvred by Mr Netanyahu, who, in violation of international law, has continued the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Yet any temptation to suggest that the world can afford a defeat for Mr Obama is dispelled by the prospect of a Romney presidency. A victory for the Republican candidate, who, as Mehdi Hasan writes on page 38, has surrounded himself with Bush-era neoconservatives, would greatly increase the chances of war with Iran, embolden the most reactionary elements in Israel and further accelerate climate change.

On the domestic level, Mr Romney’s pledge to reduce government spending by a fifth would likely plunge the US into a double-dip recession, while his plans to cut taxes for the rich and slash spending on Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies and job training would result in a marked redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the richest. Mr Obama’s health-care reform act – his single greatest domestic achievement – would be repealed and Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court judgment that established the legal right to abortion, would be overturned. Let no one claim that there is nothing to choose between the candidates.

Mr Obama stands in a noble liberal tradition that supports an active state as a precondition for individual flourishing. His opponent, by contrast, stands for a shrivelled public realm in which the market rules all and the poor are treated with contempt. In order that the former vision may triumph, Mr Obama must be returned as president on 6 November and Mr Romney decisively rejected.

This article first appeared in the 05 November 2012 issue of the New Statesman, What if Romney wins?

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Boris Johnson shows why he remains a contender with his best speech

The London mayor delivered plenty of gags - but passion and purpose too. 

After losing his status as the Conservative leadership frontrunner to George Osborne, Boris Johnson needed a special speech to revive his fortunes - and he delivered. For an address pre-briefed as "serious" there were plenty of (good) gags. Labour's "Ed Stone" was derided as the "heaviest suicide note in history", Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters were described as having "vested interests" and "indeed interesting vests". But this was also, by some distance, the most thoughtful and prime ministerial speech that the London mayor has given. 

Framing himself as a "one nation Tory", he declared that while he was "the only politician to speak out in favour of bankers", the party could not "ignore the gulf in pay packets that yawns wider year by year". Rather than mocking such rhetoric, Labour should welcome this ideological conversion and hold Johnson to his commitment. 

In a coded warning to George Osborne to soften the coming cuts to tax credits, he called for the party to "protect the hardest working and lowest paid. The retail staff, the cleaners, who get up in the small hours or work through the night because they have dreams for what their families can achieve. The people without whom the London economy would simply collapse. The aspiring, striving, working people that Labour is leaving behind." After Osborne poached "the living wage", one of his signature causes, Johnson has put a new dividing line between himself and the Chancellor on social justice. And he couldn't resist having some fun at his chief rival's expense. "We will extend the northern line to Battersea – or the Wandsworth powerhouse, as it is probably now called in the Treasury," he quipped. While his speech paid fulsome tribute to David Cameron (hailing his "extraordinary prime ministerial qualities"), the man he had positioned himself to succeed, there were no such plaudits for the Chancellor.

Addressing an irrevocably anti-EU audience (Tory activists back withdrawal by 2:1), Johson, like Theresa May before him, made immigration his red line. It was, he said, "up to this parliament and this country – not to Jean-Claude Juncker – to decide if too many people are coming here". Should Cameron, as seems likely, fail to achieve an opt-out from free movement, the logical conclusion would be for Johnson to support Brexit. 

Johnson's humour, wit and passion were rewarded with the best reception of any speaker. Five months after the Tories' election victory, it is continuity, represented by Osborne, that looks most attractive to activists. But today's speech showed why, should the party enter troubled waters, the cry will surely go up to "send for Boris". 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.