Editorial
Why Obama Must Win in 2012
Watching American pundits on television comment about politics is like observing teenagers. From the vantage point of having gone through THAT phase, one knows that hormones are carousing those teenage veins even when they try to keep things under wraps.
But just like teenage acne is a betrayal of what is happening inside, the trained eye can see through the bloviating or outright attempt at partiality. Basically, just like teenagers have a need to belong or be accepted, pundits have to vote; they have to choose a side – and thus, like everyone else, they are not impartial.
After the October 16 Presidential Debate – where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney met for a second time – it was obvious that Obama had redeemed himself. The U.S. president was obviously aware that he had let his people down two weeks ago, and when he came out at that New York debate hall, he was ready. He pounced, he parried, he jabbed, he ducked and like Mohammed Ali, he stung!
Many liberals who had been despondent lit up Twitter and were all over Facebook and other forms of social media talking up their man [We were right there with all of them]!
But this is not a mea culpa on our part. The Black Diaspora Society is, basically, in the bank for Obama. Also, many of us know for a fact that although he has many failings, the U.S. president presents the best case for a better future for those of us in the middle class. Not only have many immigrants benefitted from education grants and scholarships – most will work in the U.S.; they will pay their taxes right here and also invest here even when they send large amounts of money to their home countries.
In a country whose economy is about 70 percent dependant on consumer spending, the dollars the Diaspora spends at the malls, at the entertainment places and on the different things they need for their homes here or abroad are crucial – down to the very last dollar.
At this most recent debate, Mitt Romney spoke about being better for the economy than Obama. He said he had a plan. But what was his plan? And this is where we disagreed with the television pundits. They seemed to make the case that Romney had a better presentation on the economy than Obama.
Well … He said he’d create 12 million jobs within the next 4 years. How would he do it, we wondered? He said he’d do energy and then also crack down on China and outsourcing [what??] and some other things that got lost in translation. And guess what? The pundits and many writers online and in the main stream press seemed to give him a pass.
It seemed as though Mitt Romney had slipped them his plan – completely bypassing the audience and those voters who might want to see something on paper. And even his tax plan – something that seemed to shift all over the place – was an apparition. Obama called this whole thing ‘sketchy,’ and this attack – delivered in the form of a question to Romney about non specific business plans and strategies – seemed to resonate.
By the end of the night, although the pundits said that Gov. Romney had an economic plan [supported by the majority of those who watched the debate], it just seemed as though making the case over and over again that he’d create jobs was enough to convince people that somehow, the Romney Plan is going to magically transform the economy.
But this is where the pundits are at fault. Why are they effusive in not calling out this lack of detail? Yes – CNN’s fact checkers tried to show that the Romney plan was not as clear as Obama’s. However, the pundits – those who were supposed to be a little more knowledgeable than the rest of America – basically seemed to affirm that Romney had a plan. And if these pundits say something, there is a chance that people will believe that there’s sense behind those faces.
The simple fact is this: Pundits are American. They are either progressives or conservatives. They either want Obama to win or would like to see Romney try his hand at the White House. There are so many good reasons for either man to be taking the ultimate oath in January next year.
America is a strong country that, in spite of disparate ideology can survive either political party. At the debate, Obama made a strong case for the middle class – including many immigrants. Romney made a case for 100 percent of America. Coincidentally, The Economist run a cover story on True Progressivism: The New Politics of Capitalism and Inequality. Simply, it was like listening to Mitt Romney make a case for compassionate conservativism. Rational as this article tried to sound, true progressivism cannot come from capitalism or from conservative principles. True progress for most of the people has to come from no where else but from the people themselves. Filtered and influenced as he might have become over the years, Obama made the better case for most of these people. Mitt Romney was as specious in his arguments were delivered.
And the pundits? Well … Most tried to hold back their enthusiasm for the president’s message. Others tried their best to hide the disdain they held towards the president and were angry that Mitt Romney’s performance was wanting. Of course, Fox News went its own private direction: Their pundits said Romney won the second debate against the president simply from talking about a plan that was curiously soft on details and about how most of us would benefit from his leadership. That is why Obama must win.
Dennis Matanda
Editor – editor@thehabarinetwork.com