Paul Ryan’s selection has intrigued many but it should be recalled that President Barack Obama’s victory four years ago was a watershed in American political development. Thanks to his skill and intelligence in ‘packaging’ himself as a harbinger of ‘change’, Obama had generated huge excitement, especially among the youth and minorities. But it also upset many whites, particularly the devout ‘Christians’, who felt ‘humiliated’ that a person of mixed ethnic and cultural background should have captured the nation’s leadership.
Mitt Romney’s nomination was more the result of lacklustre performance by his rivals than any enthusiasm for him in the party’s rank and file. This may explain Paul Ryan’s choice as his running mate. This young, articulate and combative Congressman has headed the House Budget Committee where much of the battle over the economy has been fought over the last two years. Though vice presidential candidates matter little in presidential races, given Romney’s moderate policies and his Mormon faith — which continues to cause misgivings to conservatives — Paul Ryan’s nomination could have a major impact on the election, either galvanising the evangelicals or upsetting the moderates.
It may, therefore, be the first time that the vice presidential candidate’s political philosophy may come to define the tone and tenor of the presidential race. Given Ryan’s leadership on budgetary issues, including the conservative campaign to reorder the nation’s tax and spending priorities for the 21st century, he has become a darling for the right. As for the moderates, he is an anathema, since their fear is that his efforts to reduce the role of government could undo many of the country’s social safety nets and convert Medicare into a capped voucher programme. The nation’s income tax system too, which was crafted by both Republican and Democratic administrations, would also undergo a radical change ensuring massive distribution so as to favour the rich, while hurting the poor. Ryan has also been an ardent foe of abortion rights, same-sex marriage and government funding for family planning, while championing the right of gun owners.
Foreign policy plays only a minimal role in presidential elections with voters primarily interested in the economy, which is why both Romney and Ryan have said little on the subject, other than to reiterate their total support for Israel. In fact, Romney has chosen to ignore the party’s mainstream foreign policy experts and opt for people with a decidedly neoconservative bent of mind, who are viewed as unilateralists, with a missionary zeal to spread American values abroad, coupled with open admiration for Israel’s hard line leadership. Many of them are in the Bolton mold, contemptuous of the UN, disdainful of multilateral diplomacy and ardent supporters of America’s right to intervene whenever it advances American interest. His closest foreign policy adviser is Dan Senor, who was the spin doctor of Paul Bremer, the first administrator of post-occupation Iraq. A Romney presidency would be no joy to those looking for a more peaceful world.
The race remains close and is likely to become tighter with the passage of time. The president, who has presided over an economy that has failed to pick up, is counting on mistakes and failings of his rival rather than on presenting new initiatives. The Democrats, therefore, see Ryan’s nomination as an opportunity to bring the issue of governance to centre stage of the debate. President Obama need no longer be confined to defending his record but can turn the election into a referendum on the conservative vision. He can go back to being the moderate, caring national leader protecting the middle class, which is why Ryan’s presence on the ticket may well be a welcome break for President Obama in an increasingly nasty race.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 29th, 2012.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
This is quite straight-forward - Obama had little power in bringing a transformational change because the president is a symbolic figure rather than a person who can have a major tangible impact. The fact is that the gap between the 95% and the top 5 percent is so huge that today the 95% in the u.s. are far worse off then their counterparts in other developed nations and the middle-class in many emerging nations has fast approached and, in some cases, surpassed that of the U.S. 95%. The non-executive workers in U.S. are underemployed, top university grads are working contract jobs or just semi-employed, the jobs have gone abroad already. For pakistanis in u.s., we have failed to crack the executive ranks within |U.S. and now collectively suffer the fate of the middle-class u.s. Slavishly work to death without much reward and keep longing to back to Pakistan because there's a ceiling that hardly any Pakistani has broken through in the U.S.
@Sajida: Thanks for sharing the link. Certainly interesting. I think it is the issue of perceptions vs. reality. What I was talking about are perceptions. What you are talking is reality. Overall, there is an interesting trend in American politics. Republicans and Democrats are converging to the center yet they think they are so different that they have no room for compromise. This lack of willingness to take tough decisions does not bode well for US in the long run and some prominent political economists such as Paul Krugman have already highlighted the gravity of this issue.
Romney is a candidate that Obama should be able to defeat easily, in spite of failures of Obama's bad performance. Many politicians change their opinions, but as Economist, the prestigious British weekly has pointed out, many politicians flip flop, but this guy should get a olympic gold medal for breaking all records for changing his opinions on so many important subjects. What I read about him surprises me more than disappointing me. When Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favored keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans. About the rights of women he is half heartedly supporting Atkins views, which are far more conservative than any leader in US I know. . If I was his opponent, I will consider it a blessing in disguise to have Romney as my opponent. Good luck Barrack.
@Falcon. What social welfare? Thee is little difference between Obama and Romney. Read what Sachs has said in Financial Times. Or Jeff Connaughton has written in his book. Or Mike Lofgren has said. GOP is more extreme than what Democrats are under Obama;but Democrats are today what Moderate Republicans used to be. They are not what they sued to be. GOP is so right wing now they would consider Reagan a Socialist. See: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-28/hero-reagan-s-compromise-would-collide-with-tea-party-certitude.html Hero Reagan’s Compromise Would Collide With Tea Party Certitude
obama will win for sure
Obama has been a lacklustre, but a much better president than Bush. He was burdened with Bush wars and chose not to call victory and exit after OBL killing. That was a blunder, there is no purpose served now, by US presence in AFghanistan and it just drains USA of its economic vitality.
@author::To me the race does not look nasty at all.The words and actions of a candidate speak much louder than his personality and so far they are speaking against Mitt Romney.He does not realise that in opinion forming his harsh criticism of Muslims,particularly of Palestine goes very much against him.If Americans want peace in the world-which I am sure they do-they will never elect M.Romney as their next president
No vice presidential candidate ever defined US election and contrary to the author's notion evangelical Christians are not that big of a voting block and they are not right wing nuts. If they were, then in the last election Obama would not have won.
Historically, presidential candidates who are weak with masses select articulate and crowd pleasing VP candidate. L. Johnson and Hubert Humprey, and of late McCain and Sara Palain, are examples.
"But it also upset many whites, particularly the devout ‘Christians’, who felt ‘humiliated’ that a person of mixed ethnic and cultural background should have captured the nation’s leadership."
Can the author explain how he knows this? The last election statics of each state speaks contrary to the author opinion.
Republicans made a terrible mistake by nominating by default Romney. That is the break for Obama. Republican voting block is unenthusiastic about Romney for years ago, and same goes this year. He cannot connect with people and he has nothing new to offer.
If you look at the record you'll see that Obama was always the most "anti-Pakistan" presidential candidate, the only one who pledged to intervene with U.S. forces in Pakistan without coordinating with Pakistan first - and he has kept that promise.
This may be because President Obama, like me, spent part of his childhood with Muslims as neighbors. Consequently he doesn't give Pakistanis the "third-world leeway" other liberals are apt to give Muslim countries; he and I both expect better of Pakistan than we've seen over the past four decades.
The rainbow coalition should be able to beat the warmongers. Though Obama can claim that America sold more weapons during his presidency than ever before. Wah Amrika Bahadur. Chit bhi apni, pit bhi apni. In guns we trust.
Economic inequity has already grown to alarming proportions in U.S. Scaling back on taxation for the rich will make things worse, specially in post-globalized world where structural shifts have led to irreversible losses for some poor classes. But Obama is also misplaced in his policies thinking just doling out social welfare to do. A more pragmatic approach might be spending on skill enhancement of unemployed people.
Who ever is elected, US is not going to favor Pakistan. That's for sure.