Obama's Second Term Challenges: Implications for Politics on Taiwan

Obama's Second Term Challenges:
Implications for Politics on Taiwan
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 8, 2012

Summary: Four years ago Obama swept the nation on a wave of popularity. This time however, Obama's election victory was hard won. This shows that under democracy it does not matter how high one is riding today. The public is fickle, and one may still face challenges. As a world leader, Obama's performance has been satisfactory. But as the U.S. head of state, his policies have met with considerable dissatisfaction. During the four years of his second term, he must make progress on the economic front. Only then can he fulfill his promise to defend the "American Dream."

Full Text below:

Four years ago Obama swept the nation on a wave of popularity. This time however, Obama's election victory was hard won. This shows that under democracy it does not matter how high one is riding today. The public is fickle, and one may still face challenges. As a world leader, Obama's performance has been satisfactory. But as the U.S. head of state, his policies have met with considerable dissatisfaction. During the four years of his second term, he must make progress on the economic front. Only then can he fulfill his promise to defend the "American Dream."

The number of incumbent US presidents who have lost their bid for re-election can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Obama waged a hard fought campaign, not because his opponent Romney was too strong, but because he was too cavalier. The Republicans successfully incited discontent with the status quo. During the first TV debate in particular, Obama seemed as if he wasn't even there. He could not clearly outline his economic recovery plan. Many Americans saw his sloppy side. Many woke up and realized little would change over the next four years. Many entrepreneurs began looking to Romney.

High unemployment, low economic growth, and capital outflows, are Obama's worst sore points. The global economy has been a drag on the US economy. But in this respect the US is just like Taiwan. People whose standard of living is declining are not about to swallow "international factors" as an excuse. Romney was all set to issue a concession speech. But when someone intoned "economic downturn," Romney suddenly became more attractive. He suddenly posed a serious threat to Obama. Fortunately Hurricane Sandy disaster relief gave Obama the opportunity to display non-partisanship and to act presidential. This turned the American people's focus away from the economy for several days, and toward Obama's ability to lead the country. Romney meanwhile, who threatened to cut disaster relief funds from the federal budget, lost points.

This U.S. presidential election was a nail-biter. First, the campaign focused almost entirely on fewer than ten "swing states." Both parties deployed massive resources attacking each other and getting out the vote. They threw money at the problem. They fought for every vote. Secondly, people were concerned that a too close race would make it impossible to be sure who won. They feared a repeat of 2000, when Bush's narrow margin over Gore incited a major controversy. The result was a "minority president" who received fewer popular votes, who won only because he received more Electoral College votes.

These two phenomena are the result of the Electoral College's "winner-take-all" arrangement. During the last election, Obama won 53% of the vote. This time he won 68%. Three hundred sixty-five electors voted. This time he and Romney won about the same number of popular votes. But Obama won by over one hundred Electoral College votes. U.S. elections appear to be direct elections, but are in fact indirect elections. This was intended to ensure political stability. But it also reduced the size of the battlefield. During the last few days Obama concentrated his campaign efforts in the largest swing states of Ohio and Wisconsin. Sure enough, he won those states.

The composition of the House and Senate have remained the same. But the situation Obama faces today is very different from the one he faced four years ago. Four years ago, George W. Bush was rude, vulgar, and arrogant. He dispatched troops everywhere. He destroyed the image and ideals of the United States. These urgently need repair. Obama offered a fresh image and a multi-ethnic background. He had eloquence. He offered people healing and comfort. After four years in office, the international community considered Obama's foreign policy friendly and balanced. But at home, he encountered powerful Republican obstructionism. All he could do in terms of policy was to apply patches. It was hard to get anything done. Worse still, he found himself caught between the European debt crisis and the global recession. The United States resorted to quantitative easing, three times, but still could not stop the continued economic decline. In the eyes of the voters, his eloquence was now mere flash. His overseas troop withdrawal and medical reform was merely sacrificing today for the sake of tomorrow. Public attention shifted from abstract notions of national pride to concrete issues of economic livelihood.

Obama operates in an orderly manner. He seldom misspeaks. On issues of ethics and values, he has been consistent. He has not changed with the winds. But in the eyes of the electorate this was not enough. Obama was the first black president. He took an historic step for American democracy. During his second term he must revitalize the U.S. economy. He must help America become an egalitarian utopia. To achieve this, he must challenge himself.

Look at the U.S. presidential election from Taiwan. The public must have a feeling of deja vu. In January of this year, Ma Ying-jeou ran as an incumbent against Tsai Ing-wen. He too was attacked for his political record. The pre-election polls were also evenly matched. But in the end he won by six percentage points. On Taiwan and in the United States, pre-election polls are often misleading. People vote with greater deliberation than they answer telephone polls. Obama and Ma Ying-jeou's re-election reflect this phenomenon.

Leave aside personal factors. A political party's quality and style are also important considerations. During the U.S. presidential election, Romney received high marks as a presidential candidate. Voters appreciated his understanding of the economy. The media praised his non-partisanship during his term as governor. But in recent years the Republican Party has become increasingly conservative. It has become more like the Tea Party. It lacks tolerance for abortion, gays, and immigrants. It resorts to obstructionism in Congress at the drop of a hat, Voters fear that if the Republican Party take over the executive branch, it will lead to extremism. This is very similar to Taiwan. People worry that the DPP's hatred for Mainland China will cause lead to political instability.

After such a fierce battle, many fear that the United States will become even more divided, politically, economically, and socially. They hope Obama will address this problem. His re-election means greater responsibility and greater commitment. Only if one understands this point, will his victory make sense. When Ma Ying-jeou was re-elected earlier this year, he said, "One day of celebration is enough." A mere 10 months later, he was a lame duck. The economy did him in. On this point, Ma Ying-jeou surely knows how Obama feels.

看歐巴馬挑戰連任，反思台灣朝野競合
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.11.08 01:49 am

比起四年前橫掃全美的超級人氣，歐巴馬在這次大選中贏得艱苦，這說明無論民主的風光多麼美好，仍須在民眾善變的口味中不斷接受挑戰。作為世界的領導者，歐巴馬的表現中規中矩；但作為美國元首，許多民眾不滿意他的施政。在未來四年的第二屆任期中，他勢須在經濟上拿出更多成績，才能使他所承諾的「美國夢」，不致流失破滅。

美國歷來現任總統尋求連任失利的例子屈指可數，而歐巴馬此役打得如此艱辛，原因其實不在對手羅姆尼太強，而在他自己過於輕忽，讓共和黨成功地撩起了人民對現狀不滿的情緒。尤其在首場電視辯論，他近乎失神的表現，甚至無法清晰勾勒重振經濟的藍圖，讓許多美國人目睹其漫不經心的一面。這點，讓不少民眾驚覺未來四年改變的可能性不大，因而轉寄希望於企業家出身的羅姆尼身上。

高失業、低成長及投資外流，是歐巴馬最大的痛腳。儘管是受到全球景氣的牽累，但和台灣一樣，感受生活正在下降的民眾，很難接受「國際因素」這樣的解釋。因此，當「經濟欠佳」這個神祕咒語被啟動後，原已準備撰寫「落選聲明」的羅姆尼突然魅力大增，對歐巴馬構成嚴重威脅。所幸。珊蒂颶風的災後救援工作，讓歐巴馬有機會展現其「跨黨派」的總統高度，在最後數日將美國人民的焦點從經濟拉開，轉向整體治國能力。相形之下，曾揚言要把救災經費從聯邦預算中砍光的羅姆尼，就在此轉為失分。

這次美國大選的選情緊繃：一是選戰幾乎集中在十個不到的所謂「搖擺州」上，兩黨均部署了重兵廝殺及催票，撒下大把銀子，寸土必爭。二是擔心會導致總統難產，重演二○○○年布希對高爾因少數票差引發的爭議，並產生一個選民票得票較少、卻因選舉人團得票多而出線的「少數總統」。

這兩個現象，都是美國「選舉人團」制度中「贏者全拿」的設計造成的結果。上次選舉，歐巴馬拿到五成三的選民投票；換算成高達六成八、共三百六十五張的選舉人當選；這次他獲得的選民票和羅姆尼幾乎不相上下，但他在選舉人團票上卻多出上百張票。亦即，美國大選形式上看似直接選舉，但實質上卻是間接選舉，這是為了維持政治安定的設計，卻也造成了戰區過度集中的弊病。歐巴馬最後幾天在最大搖擺州俄亥俄州及威斯康辛州密集造勢，最後果然成功攻城掠地。

儘管參眾兩院在這次選舉基本維持平盤，但歐巴馬今天面對的形勢，和四年前已經大不相同。四年前，小布希的粗魯、庸俗、自大、四處出兵，讓美國的形象和理想破毀，亟待修補；歐巴馬則以其清新形象、多元族群背景，及雄辯滔滔的口才，提供了美國療傷止痛的安慰。四年的執政，歐巴馬在外交政策上以其友善、均衡，建立了不錯的國際評價；但在國內，他卻遇上共和黨強烈的抵制和杯葛，施政上只能縫縫補補，難有大建樹。更嚴重的是，夾在歐債風暴及世界景氣滑坡之間，美國三度採取量化寬鬆政策，仍阻止不了經濟的持續下滑。在這種情況下，他的好口才在選民眼裡變成了華而不實，他推動海外撤軍及醫療等改革則被視為捨近求遠；因為人們的關注，已經從抽象的國家驕傲轉向更現實的生計問題。

平實而論，歐巴馬的行事穩健，他甚少失言，在一些涉及道德及價值觀的問題上也都能保持一貫，不會隨風搖擺。但從選民的眼光看來，這些仍然不夠。歐巴馬當選首位黑人總統，為美國民主跨越的歷史性一步；他的第二任，則必須為振興美國經濟找到出路，讓美國成為均富而好禮的夢土。要實現這點，他必須對自己提出更嚴格的挑戰。

從台灣看美國大選，民眾一定有一種似曾相識的感覺。今年元月，馬英九以現任總統和蔡英文角逐大位時，也因政績備受攻擊，選前民調幾乎不相上下，最後選舉則以六個百分點之多勝出。不論台美，選前的民調都難稱虛偽，但人們最後的投票行為會比在電話民調上的答覆多出幾分慎思。從歐巴馬或馬英九的連任，都反映了這點。

除了個人因素外，政黨的整體素質及風格，也是選民的重要考量。以這次美國大選為例，羅姆尼作為總統候選人的評價其實不差，選民除看好他對經濟的理解，媒體對他擔任州長時期表現的「超越黨派」立場也頗表稱揚。然而，近些年共和黨的保守化、茶黨化取向，除了對墮胎、同志、移民等議題的缺乏寬容，更不時在國會作無理的杯葛，都使選民擔心共和黨掌政會將美國帶上偏激之路。這和台灣民眾憂慮民進黨的反中傾向會造成國家的不安定，似也如出一轍。

歷經激烈的一戰，很多人擔心美國在政治、經濟、社會各方面將更形分裂；這點，有待歐巴馬去修補。連任，意味著更多的責任及更大的承擔，必須看清這點，勝選才有意義。年初勝選連任時曾說過「高興一天就好」的馬英九，不到十月即瀕臨跛腳，就是敗在經濟；在這個議題上，馬英九儼然與歐巴馬同病相憐。