Four years ago this time, a month before the US elections, I wrote that my heart was with Obama, but my head was with McCain. The reasons were obvious. Barack Obama was the symbol of change, a messiah of the poor and a voice of confidence about the future. Many of us resonated with his promises and dreams, but he was an unknown quantity with little experience. McCain, on the other hand, appeared to be solid, experienced and a champion of continuity. Moreover, McCain, as George Bush’s successor, would be easy on non-proliferation and support the full implementation of the nuclear deal, about which Obama was ambivalent. For India, McCain appeared a better bet.
Today, my heart and head are with Barack Obama for very different reasons. Obama did not live up to his promise of change, nor did he save the poor. He did not change the US positions on Palestine, Cuba or Iran. In foreign policy, his path was not different from that of George Bush. Even his confidence appears to be failing as he faltered and fumbled in the first debate with Mitt Romney. However, Obama is still the man of promise, whose modest achievements make him worthy of a second term. Mercifully, he did not bring about all the changes he had promised, but remained within the confines of the advice from the different estates that reflected the will of the people, the Congress, the universities, the think-tanks and the media. In a second term, he would be more courageous and forthright and complete the unfinished business of his first term. Obama deserves not only emotional, but also intellectual support. India has a greater stake in Obama than in Romney.
Obama has left much unfinished. If speeches were enough to put the economy back on track, turn the Arab world around to appreciate the United States, rid the globe of nuclear weapons, bring US soldiers back from Afghanistan and Iraq, contain China and build a strategic partnership with India, create millions of jobs or enhance US prestige and power abroad, Obama would have done it all. He had no rival in speech making, in conceptualising and articulating fresh ideas, but when it came to pursuing them with vigour and intensity, he seemed to shy away. The world’s most powerful man was not powerful enough to practice what he preached. Another term might give him that extra resolve and make him a true messiah of change. He might even finally deserve the Nobel Prize for Peace, which was awarded to him on the strength of his words, not on the basis of his deeds.
The changing fortunes of presidential candidates were not illustrated better than in the first debate and the news that came soon after that the unemployment rate had dropped for the first time in three years to 7.8 per cent. If indeed the popularity of Obama had dropped after the first debate, it would be a case of proving the Biblical truth that those who ‘live by the sword, die by the sword.’ It was a speech that Obama made in 2004 that catapulted him from Chicago to the national stage. The speeches that he made since then brought him to the White House. How could he lose to Mitt Romney in a debate? Not only political analysts, but also face readers and motion experts agree that Obama lost the first debate. He appeared tired and out of his depth. His body language was that of an exhausted and defeated man, not the best gift that he could give to Michelle on their 20th wedding anniversary. Happily, the fall in popularity on account of a debate debacle can be made up by better performance in future confrontations between the two contenders. Obama is likely to prove his mettle in the foreign policy debate. Romney is not known to have any particular expertise in foreign relations and Obama has a fairly good record to show. Though he may not have any spectacular success in foreign affairs, he has not endangered the integrity and security of the US any further than George Bush did. The only ammunition that Romney has recently acquired is the killing of the US Ambassador and others in Libya. It remains a mystery as to how an ambassador, who was helpful to the new dispensation in Libya, was targeted even when the process of reconciliation was in progress. Obama himself began his speech at the UN with a poignant reference to Ambassador Stevens.
The mother of all theories about presidential elections is that no US president in history has ever won a re-election if the unemployment rate was above 7 per cent. The unemployment rate had hovered much above this figure for long. India may have unwittingly contributed to this problem by not ordering the fighter aircraft from the US and by delaying nuclear trade with the US on account of the liability law. Obama’s pronouncements against outsourcing were prompted by the concern that India had not helped him in his bid to increase jobs in the US. His statements on this issue were so disturbing that an eminent Indian American pleaded with Obama not to sow the seeds of hatred against India. Soon after the first debate, news came that the unemployment rate dropped for the first time in three years. This particular disability may not be a factor anymore for Obama.
For the oldest democracy, US elections have not been above board in procedures and processes, not to speak of complex ballots and counting errors. India has, on the whole, a better record of organising elections. In the year 2000, the Supreme Court had to intervene to declare the results as both the competing candidates claimed victory. Even with that experience, the ballots were not reformed to avoid these pitfalls. To add to these, Democrats, including Bill Clinton, have alleged that many minority voters have been disenfranchised, to the detriment of Obama’s chances. Some delimitations of constituencies have also affected the Democratic Party.
A few months ago, the speculation was that Obama would win by default as Mitt Romney had many handicaps, such as the divisions in the Republican Party, his religion and his lack of experience in national and international affairs. The choice of his running mate, Paul Ryan did not make amends for any of these. Romney appears to have overcome many of these handicaps to put up a stiff fight. Obama still leads the race, but Romney is not far behind. The uncommitted voters may swing either way, depending on the dynamics of the last month of the campaign. Obama’s origins and his colour may still be a factor in the minds of the conservatives. All said and done, the US and the world will be better served by a second term for Barack Obama.
T P Sreenivasan is a former ambassador of India and governor for India of the IAEA.
E-mail: tpsreenivasan@gmail.com