The Obama mystique

There certainly would be any number of postulations to explain Obama’s re-election, starting from his performance in office in the past four years, which in spite of Mitt Romney’s attempt to portray him as incompetent and bungling was correctly seen by many Americans as though not sterling but commendable. He took the economy by the […]

There certainly would be any number of postulations to explain Obama’s re-election, starting from his performance in office in the past four years, which in spite of Mitt Romney’s attempt to portray him as incompetent and bungling was correctly seen by many Americans as though not sterling but commendable. He took the economy by the scruff of its neck by halting its free fall in 2008, steadied it by dealing with major sectors such as the auto- industry and the banking sector-thereby contributed to halting the ever burgeoning unemployment level. Right now, all indices point to an upward trend such that it is believed that by 2014 the economy would be put on an even keel and ineluctably usher in growth and prosperity.  The result was that many voters, particularly those not blinkered by other reasons; saw no need to deny him the opportunity to complete the work he had started in 2008.

For me, however, Obama’s victory has all to do with his mystique. Anyone who stayed glued to the TV watching the campaigns while it lasted, particularly the tail end of it in all its physically exacting and grueling detail could not have failed to see the intensity with which he pursued his goal as a needful aspiration because of its intrinsic value for all Americans, as opposed to just for a select group, which sadly characterised the Romney campaign. He kept repeating let’s do this for all and everyone, and by so doing underscoring a certain inclusiveness as the plank of his bid for re-election. Surely, such a message could not have failed to strike a cord with many voters of all colours of the skin and may eventually have tipped the scale in his favour. So ideally he symbolized a bridge builder, a coalition former, forging and defining a common purpose for his people beyond colour, race, status or any other such divisive labels.

Samuel P. Huntington’s The clash of civilization and the remaking of the World order is well known and widely read. His other very important book about the American people entitled: Who are we?’ is not as well known but of equal importance too in understanding his thinking about America’s demography, and the necessity for the dominance or supremacy of the Caucasian race over every other. Here him: ‘’Some Americans have promoted multiculturalism at home; some have promoted universalism abroad; and some have done both. Multiculturalism at home threatens the United States and the West, universalism abroad threatens the West and the world. Both deny the uniqueness of Western Culture.’’  At a personal level Obama as a product of miscegenation—a product of two cultures —is a repudiation of Hungtington’s misguided view of the supremacy of one culture over the others. His re-election on the platform of building an inclusive society by enlarging the middle class with multi-culturalism as the goal is a natural progression.

Pundits have continued to emphasize the fact that his victory is largely owed to his appeal to a broad spectrum of Americans—including of course, the overwhelming votes of Blacks, White women and (men too) who felt Obama is a better champion of their special issues and interests and the Latinos who have virtually overwhelmed the US in huge numbers and redrawn its demographic map who instinctively trust and see him as one of them, who would not overly retool immigration laws against them. All these factors show that any presidential candidate ignores the shifting demographic realities in the US at his own peril.

And this fact was brought brutally home to Mitt Romney whose rhetoric and campaign messages were targeted principally at one racial group. Captive to the ingrained age –old, divisive views of the Republican Party that has since become hostage to the Tea party members, he was unable to project himself beyond interests tearing away at the party’s cohesion and antithetical to the wishes of most Americans. An unfortunate comment about some 47 per cent of Americans who don’t pay tax but depend on the government for their livelihood portrayed him as having lost touch with those at the bottom rung of the society, which invariably are people of ‘’colour.’’ It was one of the many gaffes that ensured he never recovered sufficiently to upset President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.

But Barack Obama faces a daunting challenge in bringing about a resurgent economy and a society where no one would be left behind. The world also expects him to bring his now considerable freshly won clout to bear on the Israeli –Palestinian issue that had been stalled on the necessity of a two-state solution and nudge it towards mutually acceptable and concrete peace. In Africa, even though the whole continent still rooted for him in his re-election bid, many people are piqued that he treated African issues with benign neglect in his first term, for example he made just one grudging visit to some select African countries. There have been no policy initiatives supporting Africa’s development like Bill Clinton did. Even George W. Bush graciously supported programmes embarked upon to combat the HIV/Aids pandemic on the continent with lavish funds.

Africa is therefore expecting with bated breath his own contribution to the continent. The last time he visited Barack Obama rightly made a case for good governance and governments that work for the benefit of their people. Most countries in Africa–except a few where die-hard dictators still hold sway, periodically choose those that govern them through the ballot box, though the practice is still fraught with malpractices.  Africa would expect a more concrete and tangible contribution that would suggest indeed that he cherishes his deep African roots while he sets about making good his promise to the American people.