I’m no expert in none of the topics below. However, and since there is a widespread disbelief about the importance of next American elections, I felt like pointing out a couple of points I believe to be worthy of consideration for non-American citizens. It isn’t like we have a voice but, in the age of globalization, we sure could use some.
First of all, America’s approach to economic policy remains very influent, while setting the tone for economic policy worldwide. As Stiglitz points out:
(…) Romney has not really distanced himself from the Bush administration’s policies. On the contrary, his campaign has featured the same advisers, the same devotion to higher military spending, the same belief that tax cuts for the rich are the solution to every economic problem, and the same fuzzy budget math.
Therefore, if you are not exactly in line with “austerity politics” or, more broadly, with “structural adjustment” and economic contraction, then Romney’s not your guy. While we global citizens are trying to make the push for the implementation of adjustment policies more prone to economic growth, job creation and to overcome deprivation, we can use some support from a candidate like Obama, more keynesian-oriented, than the righ-winged, business as usual, Reagan-inspired Romney.
In fact, the area where we can express greater praise for Obama is precisely in fighting deprivation – health deprivation, to be concise. As the The Economist explains:
The other qualified achievement [of Obama’s Administration] is health reform. Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal.
Obama deserves praise not only for doing the right thing, building capabilities for the more vulnerable american households, but also for the example Obamacare represents for all the developed states, urging to get rid of their social responsabilities in favor of budget consolidation. I’d like to see similar commitment to providing better education for the very same vulnerable households, in a country where the poor get poor health, poor education and very poor opportunities.
However, there’s a major challenge in chasing such noble social goals: America cannot continue to tax like a small government while spending like a big one. Some adjustments are necessary and they need to be done as soon as possible and in a way that reduces the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
Additionaly, environment and climate change cannot be ignored no more. While both Romney and Obama did not pay great attention to this issue during the campaign – at least before “Sandy” crushed in – Obama is more likely to do something about it than the very skeptic market-solves-all-bads Romney, trapped in a party of “climate deniers”.
Regarding trade, well, we don’t need a trade war between America and China at this point of our lives. We really don’t, Mr. Romney. Obama wins again.
Is is also commonly accepted today that balanced regulation enables markets to operate better, not the contrary, as some highly iluminated minds around Romney seem to believe. Even though Obama has not excelled on his trade and commerce policies, it is hard to imagine how Romney could even do better.
Said this, Obama has not been perfect. Far from it. As strange as it may sound, it was during Obama’s mandate that China overtook the US as Africa’s largest trading partner. Quoting from Reuteurs:
In 2009, China overtook the United States as Africa’s largest trading partner. According to the Brookings Institution, President Hu Jintao of China has made up to seven trips to Africa, five as head of state, and has visited at least 17 countries. In contrast, Obama’s 20-hour 2009 sojourn in Ghana has been his only trip to sub-Saharan Africa as president.
“We would have expected to see more American involvement instead of a retreat. If you go to many countries and ask them about who is doing more, they will tell you China,” said Mwangi Kimenyi, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
In my personal opinion, Obama’s lowest point was reached in the day America got their public enemy number one, Osama Bin Laden.
I did appreciate the departure from the previous approach to the «War on Terror», sustented on “all muslims are suspects of terrorrism and all suspects of terrorrism can die and suffer if for the good of National Security”. Obama has managed to focus on terrorrists, dropping religion.
Anyway, war is still war, an invasion is still an invasion, aggression is still aggression and I still don’t understand why the Americans forced the occupation of Afghanistan andI still don’t like OTAN and what it represents. It just doesn’t make sense in today’s world, I have expressed it before.
I must say I was extremely disappointed with Obama the day I saw him celebrating cheerfuly the murdered of another human being, even though it was for the good of National Security (or was it revenge?). Osama Bin Laden was a criminal and I do not support criminals; however, criminals belong to justice, not to graveyards. Martyrs belong to graveyards, and, as I see it, we sure didn’t want any more of those.
Four years ago, I had great expectations for Obama. I’ve spent Election’s night celebrating his announced victory. We all thought he could make the difference in a increasingly multipolar and globalized world. He proved he cannot do such thing, at least alone. He proved to be a lot weaker than we thought, in a variety of topics.
But Romney just shouldn’t represent a viable option in today’s world.