Short of renaming Washington DC “Barrackpore”, the US is doing all it can to convince itself and the rest of the world that this election marks a complete, radical break. It is undoubtedly a mandate for change.
But like the president-elect’s ancestry, the election of president number 44 was far more nuanced than the simple contrast in primary colours that it is being presented as. The mandate was primarily that of anti-incumbency. It was a vote against Bush.
Also Obama has strong WASP roots through his mother, and the importance of those cannot be de-emphasised. The non-WASP part of Obama’s ancestry helped him connect with many key minority groups. But he could not have won this election as he did without bagging a 45 per cent share of white votes. That was enough, given massive turnouts and overwhelming support from non-white demographics.
As to his origins, far too much has been made of his middle name. The Republicans tried to drum up an anti-Obama wave by drawing attention to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama shares a name with the Prophet’s grandson. Supporters of the president-elect, meanwhile, argue that the “Hussein” implies automatic acceptance across the third world.
Well, Hussein is a far more common American name than “Tecumseh” or “Gamaliel”, and Sherman and Harding became presidents despite such unusual monikers. At the same time, Obama is an apostate in orthodox Muslim terms. He doesn’t follow his father’s religion. Apostasy is punishable by death sentences in many Islamic countries. This could put a crimp in his long-term acceptance by Muslim majority nations.
As to policy, who knows whether Obama or anybody else can deliver what the US needs? He will have to find a way to gracefully extricate the US from its Iraqi misadventure while simultaneously increasing focus on Afghanistan. He will also have to clean up an awesome fiscal mess. More nebulously but importantly, he has to restore global confidence in both his nation and his office.
More From This Section
Each of these tasks is difficult and performing all together may prove beyond his capacity though he has talked the talk. The pragmatic observer could argue that Obama is more likely to deliver on most fronts than his opponent but he does carry the burden of huge and unrealistic expectations.
The apparently overwhelming mandate was also qualified by many nuances. Whites preferred McCain, rural voters preferred McCain. People over 30 preferred McCain. Wall Street prefers McCain though this may change once Obama’s team is announced.
The disconnect with business arises from the fact that Obama appears to be an advocate of protectionism. How campaign rhetoric translates into ground reality remains to be seen. Again, the pragmatic would argue that Obama appears more capable of bootstrapping the US economy than his rival.
It was a truly brilliant campaign. Obama not only managed to energise young Americans of all communities, he channelled that energy intelligently. He won the Democratic nomination by cleverly gaming the Democratic nomination system and not wasting resources unlike the far more experienced Hillary Clinton.
After nomination, he translated a 6 per cent lead in popular votes into a massive victory by intelligently concentrating resources in states, which could turn blue from pink/red. That indicates an ability to analyse and influence political processes that should stand him in good stead as he dives into the more unfamiliar realms of global politics.
To my mind, the way the presidential campaign was run is the best indicator of Obama’s competence. It suggests that he is not only the first mixed-race incumbent of the White House, he is arguably the most intelligent person to have ever made it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.