Firstly, the right candidate won......sorta. I put down on
my blog before the election that Obama was going to win and that if I had to
support one candidate, it would be him. However, as I said at the time, do not
think of that as a ringing endorsement. There I many things which are objectionable
to Obama in the White House. He is in favour of gay marriage, he opposes any
further limits being put on abortion, he lied his way to victory in his first
presidential win and he did the same this year.
However, there are plus points to an Obama Presidency that I
just didn’t see in Romney, and those are on the economy, where he acted bravely
to support a motor industry which would have crumbled without Federal support,
and internationally, where he is able to hold his own and where a man with 4
years experience will do much better than a fresh-faced newcomer with no idea
what to do. On both these things Obama was a better candidate than Romney, who opposed
the auto-bailout and was going to brand China a currency manipulator on his
first day in office, an empty gesture that would only incur the wrath of China’s
new leadership.
Secondly, the politics of the US has shifted. The polling
data has been showing this for a few years but it is only with a Presidential
election that these issues can really be seen. The average voter in the US is happier
with single ‘moms’, happier with gay rights, willing to support abortion rights
in some form and more open to immigration and the changes in racial
demographics this will bring to the US. All these issues were covered by the
candidates, and on most of them they took opposite views. Obama took the
victory narrowly, but even that victory is a sign of change in US society.
Thirdly, demographics. It is easy to forget that some people
were predicting a Romney landslide in 2012. Now I think they were misguided,
but they weren’t just plucking those figures out of nowhere. These were people
who know their stuff and were willing to predict a GOP win. And they were BADLY
wrong. Like, really, really BADLY wrong. Florida’s vote is now in and it went with
Obama (along with Colorado they clearly didn’t read my memo – 2 states of a
correct prediction, grrr), give the President a win of 332 to 206 in the
Electoral College. That landslide is revealed in the breakdown of voter
profiles.
As an example, Obama didn’t just beat Romney in getting the
black and Latino vote. He thrashed
him, winning 90% and 70% of their votes respectively. Romney lost the single
woman’s vote by 36 points. His only main demographic wins were the white vote
(60%) and married women (7% over Obama). But these simply reflect the values
that are diminishing. Marriage rates are falling, the numbers of white
Americans are falling year on year to Latino, black and other racial
backgrounds and roughly 65% of Americans are in favour of loosening immigration
laws (though I’m a tad sceptical of that poll and the way it was conducted).
Fourthly, the future. All this shows that a shift is coming
to US politics as the Republicans seek to embrace new views whilst keeping to
their foundations. As I’ve mentioned before the Latino vote will continue to grow, to the extent that Texas will be a swing
state within the next 20 years. The GOP will need to find ways to reach out to
this community, whether that’s by changing views on immigration or the economy
(though I hope and pray they don’t change on gay marriage or abortion).
But the Democrats will need to change as well. They had the
demographic boost this year and as long as they can keep to that they can win.
But they will not be able to play racial politics for too many elections
without people seeing what they’re doing. They will need to deliver on policies
they promote, they will need to attract people to them because of firm ideals
and not just because of stereotyping. All this could take a long time to come
to fruition but it will need to take place.
And so, in talking to the future, we come to the obligatory
random guess as to who should run next time. I banged the drum for Chris
Christie to run this time round but in the Lord’s good providence he didn’t
(maybe he doesn’t read this blog.....nah, that’s crazy talk) and so was able to
deal with Superstorm Sandy and the needs of the people of New Jersey. I think
that will boost his credibility and enable him to reach across the party divide
in the years to come. He has a gubernatorial election next year which he will
win (before Sandy he was still mid-50s in approval ratings), so he will have to
decide whether to run or not and then if he runs and wins whether he leaves
early to launch a White House bid. It is all awkwardly timed for him – not standing
will announce SUPER early that he is going for the White House, stepping down
as Governor could be a bad PR move. Paul Ryan (Romney’s running mate) would
also be a strong candidate but I fear he may lead to an even bigger defeat for
the Republicans than this year with his strong hardline economic views.
And what about the Democrats. One thing is for certain,
Obama won’t be running as a President is limited to 2 4-year terms (under the
22nd Amendment for all you geeks out there). SO who is a rising star?
Well Hillary Clinton could run, especially as she won’t be Secretary of State
in Obama’s second term. But I think that she might be a long shot as she’ll be
69 by 2016. For me the more likely choices are Andrew Cuomo or Michael O’Malley,
Governors of New York and Maryland respectively or, from the lower tier of
government that is Mayor-dom (is that a word?),
Antonio Villaraigosa of LA or Julian Castro of San
Antonio, both of whom gave great speeches at the Democratic National Convention
in September. His twin brother Joaquin is also a good candidate for the future and
currently serves as one of Texas’ Congress members. If I had to pick out of
that list, it would be for O’Malley, closely followed by Villaraigosa.
So, another exciting US election down and a phenomenal
result for Obama, captured through excellent campaigning and a good tactical
get out the vote campaign. It was a tremendous victory as Obama fought against
every statistic to stay in the White House, even beating the never-fails-except-when-it-fails Redskins rule. Interestingly he made far less outrageous campaign
promises this time round so we shall see where things go in the future.
For those who care, the next election in the world
is in Sierra Leone on November 17th. There has already been
significant controversy over candidates not turning up for debates and rumours
of bribery and vote-rigging. Join with me in praying that election goes
smoothly and that the candidate there is as gracious in defeat as Romney was.
Debate warmly encouraged
Enjoyed reading this bud. Only thing I'd add is that as the Latino population gets wealthier, they may be less inclined to vote Democrat because they'll have the economic freedom to cast their vote according to their social principles. The abortion issue, due to their Catholic faith, and their cultural affinity for independent business, compatible with a market liberalisation ideology, could well see many of them becoming GOP supporters in the next decade or so. Probs why Jed Bush is getting so much hype with a decent Florida record, good relations with Hispanics (his wife is one) but undercut by a toxic last name. I reckon Bobby Jindal will have a go, but he might struggle because of the focus on the Latino vote. Really good stuff man.
ReplyDeleteHi George, thanks for your comments! I suspect you're right that some Latinos will move towards the GOP. However I think the Republicans will have to back-track a lot from their current position before they will claim any significant chunk of that voting block. Let's not forget Romney had to propose and support 'self-deportation' to gain votes during the primaries!!
DeleteGood stuff Mark! It will be interesting to see if Obama can work out a grand deal during this Go around. The sinking of his first Grand Deal with Boehner changed Obama. When appeals to moderate politics didn't work, he began fighting with the biggest (best poling) weapons he had. My guess is that we will see more of that. Lean more on 1% talk, lean more on immigration.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans may look to a younger brand in four years. The "moral majority" is aging. The traditional evangelical church is in decline. This election may have been the high water mark for anti-abortion politics. (I think that perhaps that is ok, let's focus on Grace before truth.) It's possible that George is right, maybe the latino's will turn right. But when? And can the Catholic church hold the hard line that long?
My guess is that Mayor Corey Booker goes national in 4years, maybe not as a pres hopeful. And I'm putting down a long shot bet that we the evangelical church starts spreading their vote more broadly. Churches that are growing tend to be more politically diverse. As evidenced by Tim Keller's church in NYC.
http://kellerquotes.com/the-signs-of-political-idolatry/
I agree Josh and suspect the GOP will change in the enxt few years as many of their more traditional thinkers and supporters disappear. However I don't think the party will gain mass appeal without some serious introspection and change in the next few years. That's why I support Christie - a moral conservative but social liberal, he could easily gain major support with younger, traditionally minded voters.
DeleteAs for the church, I would support any move that sees a greater diversity of voting opinions within the Body of Christ. My fear is that the US church still has some way to go before gaining the attitude of UK evangelicals, where your vote is between you and God. A dear (US) friend of mine recently told me that they didn't want people to know which way they voted because they knew they would face abuse from friends on both sides of the fence. We just wouldn't have that in the UK, thank goodness
I find it interesting (and in some respects troubling) that the US is an explicitly secular state, and yet any political speech has to be ended with "God Bless America" and it would be impossible for a non-Christian to become president. I am not anti-religious at all, and I respect to some extent the right of the Church not to want to conduct gay marriages in churches - although I would be interested to see how this can be reconciled with the Church of England's acceptance of gay clergy - but the Church does not, and should not, have exclusive say on what marriage is or who it is between. If there is no official link between the institutions of government and religion, then it is surely unreasonable for any religious group to expect to influence policy on religious grounds when this would actively restrict the rights of others to do pretty harmless stuff. Ironically, the UK seems to be the opposite of the US on both points: it's explicitly a Christian state, yet continually mentioning God in a political speech would be a seriously un-savvy thing to do.
ReplyDeleteHey Roz, very nice to hear from you! I agree with you on the irony of US life and religion. It is founded on the myth of the American Christian nation which is all over the US right (granted you have the Plymouth pilgrims but the Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly deist). The nod to God is ingrained in US life and is found in other areas, such as the Pledge to Allegiance (which most school children recite every day) having 'under God' inserted into it in 1954
DeleteI would however disagree with you on the gay marriage issue. I am against the legalising of it and think that it really is for the church to speak up in opposition, seeing as it is tasked with teaching what God teaches in the Bible
Roz, I agree with you about the many ironies in American politics. I also agree that the church needs to start reconsidering how it wants to face the world. The message of the Gospel is amazing and mysterious enough, the belief that there is only one God and He's in control right now is difficult enough. I think that adding more assumptions is too much.
ReplyDeleteThe Church needs to take a serious look at who our New Testament enemies were and navigate far from them (the (foreskin) judiasers, the pharisees, the gnostics.) I'm in the minority here, but so were the prophets, I love the Church, but I think we are missing the boat, or worse... catching the boat to Tarshish.