With such a great victory come unreasonably great expectations. Many of Mr Obama’s more ardent supporters will be let down””and in some cases they deserve to be. For those who voted for him with their eyes wide open to his limitations, everything now depends on how he governs. Abroad, this 21st-century president will have to grapple with the sort of great-power rivalries last seen in the 19th century (see article). At home, he must try to unite his country, tackling its economic ills while avoiding the pitfalls of one-party rule. Rhetoric and symbolism will still be useful in this; but now is the turn of detail and dedication.
Mr Obama begins with several advantages. At 47, he is too young to have been involved in the bitter cultural wars about Vietnam. And by winning support from a big majority of independents, and even from a fair few Republicans, he makes it possible to imagine a return to a more reflective time when political opponents were not regarded as traitors and collaboration was something to be admired.
Oddly, he may be helped by the fact that, in the end, his victory was slightly disappointing. He won around 52% of the popular vote, more than Mr Bush in 2000 and 2004, but not a remarkable number; this was no Roosevelt or Reagan landslide. And though Mr Obama helped his party cement its grip on Congress, gaining around 20 seats in the House of Representatives and five in the Senate, the haul in the latter chamber falls four short of the 60 needed to break filibusters and pass controversial legislation without Republican support (though recounts may add another seat, or even two). Given how much more money Mr Obama raised, the destruction of the Republican brand under Mr Bush and the effects of the worst financial crisis for 70 years, the fact that 46% of people voted against the Democrat is a reminder of just what a conservative place America still is. Mr Obama is the first northern liberal to be elected president since John Kennedy; he must not forget how far from the political centre of the country that puts him.
Read it all. It is nice to see some in the media describe the outcome correctly. We have already posted about the numbers earlier, but this is best seen as a decisive electoral victory and a modestly solid victory in the popular vote. A landslide–as it was termed many times in the last week–it is not–KSH.
I’m not sure there’s a charisma exception in economics. High taxation, welfare state spending, protectionism and massively increased regulation of private activity by clueless bureaucrats are not a prescription for economic recovery, let alone expansion. Vices do not turn into virtues because of the [nature] of the one imposing them.
Slightly edited-ed.
Jeffersonian, does government bailout of failed banks count as “welfare state spending”?
[blockquote]Jeffersonian, does government bailout of failed banks count as “welfare state spending� [/blockquote]
No, that’s even worse.
I’d just like to say thank you to George W. and Laura Bush.
I have appreciated and the graceful, charitable, classy way they have handled the left wing hate speech throughout their tenure in the White House and especially in the face of being wrongly blamed for the mess the Democratic liberals in congress have made of the economy.
I also like the what Bush is handling the transition as opposed to what Clinton did.
[blockquote]Slightly edited-ed. [/blockquote]
I’m puzzled at to why this was edited, Elf. Other posts have been filled with exuberance over this superficial attribute of the President-Elect; is it so terrible to point out that this superficial attribute will have zero meaning when the substance of his policies are implemented?
The ultimate irony is that the economic collapse decided the election in the favor of the candidate with the policies guaranteed to prolong the downturn.
Agreed, #7 vu82.
It is good to see such a balanced assessment in the Economist, which leans left. How lovely it would be to see some semblance of balance return to the American papers and magazines! Whatever Obama was in the past, he has now been elected, and he needs to be evaluated on what he actually does and not on what we thought he might do.
The only item about the Chicago past that worries me now is the federal corruption case ongoing. For the good of the country, I hope for two things: that Obama turns out to have been on the periphery, not directly involved, and that he will not take steps to help the Illinois Democratic machine by firing the prosecutor.
As I said on other posts, I hope I am wrong but I believe Obama’s presidency will be a dismal failure. Oh, he is charming, yes. But he is nothing more than a politician with no experience, character or substance. The world leaders in the Middle East, Far East and Russia will eat him alive. These guys are tough. They will kill their grandmothers to win. His domestic policies will result in large, expensive government programs financed by decimating the defense industry and raising industry-killing taxes. I hope I am wrong, but that is what I expect we will see.