Voters accept Obama's case for government

SOMETHING extraordinary just happened. Republicans had reason to believe Barack Obama would be a one-term president after four years of grim economic struggle. But these are not ordinary times. The US is still feeling the effects of the recession that took hold after the global financial crisis on the eve of Mr Obama's 2008 election. This year's election was a referendum on the economy, as Republicans had hoped, but it was also a choice between competing views of the role of government. The Democratic vision won out.
Not since Franklin D. Roosevelt has an incumbent won with unemployment above 7.2 per cent. After 43 months above 8 per cent, only last month did the rate fall to 7.8 per cent, the same as when Mr Obama took office. Yet the historical precedent suggests a context for the voters' decision to give him the responsibility of finishing the job of recovery, just as they did president Roosevelt in the Depression era 76 years ago. Then, as now, a majority of Americans supported a greater role for government than Republican candidate Mitt Romney, running mate Paul Ryan and their Tea Party backers would allow.
The results in key swing states suggest voters approved of bailing out the vehicle industry (and, earlier, the banks). This was crucial in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Mr Obama's hands-on response to hurricane Sandy compared favourably to Republican president George W. Bush's inept handling of Katrina. "Obamacare", the government-mandated health insurance scheme to extend cover to millions, was surprisingly well backed in exit polls.
Mr Romney opposed stimulus programs and bailouts, vowed to scrap Obamacare and even suggested cutting the government's emergency response capacity. Republican promises to preserve healthcare programs for the elderly were unconvincing in light of their proposals during the brinkmanship over the federal debt ceiling. Voters were well aware, as Congress's pitifully low approval ratings show, of the legislative dysfunction created by Republican obstructionism.

Advertisement

Remarkably, the Democrats increased their majority in the Senate, which once looked likely to fall to the Republicans, who control the House. Senate candidates' blunders alienated moderate voters, as did Mr Romney's pandering to the right to see off his rivals in the primaries. The late emergence of "moderate Mitt" was unconvincing; voters remembered him saying he was not worried about the poor and "the 47 per cent" he said paid no tax and depended on government.
Having lost a contest that a more consistent and moderate candidate could have won — and, yes, Ronald Reagan would qualify — Republicans must take stock of their self-inflicted damage. That review will be painful, but not half as difficult as the task facing Mr Obama, who must go back to work minus much of the hope and energy of 2008. The recent revival of economic growth and confidence is fragile and faces an early test next month when the debt ceiling is reviewed. The debt has passed $US16 trillion, much of the growth still driven by Bush-era tax cuts and wars. Mr Romney's "deficit reduction plan" outlined tax cuts and higher defence spending without specifying savings.
Mr Obama must make the tough calls on savings and take on the almighty challenge of getting Congress to accept revenue-raising measures. No sensible budget policy can just ignore half of the revenue-and-spending equation. Europe's plight should spur the US to get its debt under control. The world needs Washington to act.
US voters have proved to be remarkably understanding of why they could not answer yes to the question Mr Reagan famously posed in his 1980 debate with one-term president Jimmy Carter: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Unlike the Reagan pitch of 1984, Mr Obama was not yet able to declare: "It's morning again in America." Winning re-election may even prove to have been easier than the challenges still to come.