When US President Barack Obama suffered his first self-described “shellacking” during his first term, I was still very much a pro-Obama enthusiast, but by the end of his first four years in office, I was decidedly lukewarm about his choice of policy priorities both in terms of US domestic and foreign policy. In the end this column took a stance that could best be described as abstention during Obama’s 2012 presidential contest with Mitt Romney, a shocking reversal from our unreserved endorsement of Obama in 2008. By 2014, any careful follower of this column would be aware that the column had become almost completely disillusioned by the (lack of) global leadership offered by Obama.
So I was not all surprised, perhaps instead relieved, that US voters shared similar reservations about Obama, and essentially voted to prevent him from implementing a domestic and international agenda that they were no longer comfortable with. In the aftermath of the first mid-term defeat in November 2010, Obama blamed the loss on the slow economic recovery, voter misinterpretation of the stimulus as an expansion of government rather than a temporary response to a specific problem; and his government’s slow pace of changing how Washington works rather than a repudiation of his leadership and policies. In that episode, the democrats lost at least 60 House and six Senate seats to the Republicans. To Obama’s credit, he, however, bounced back to defeat Romney two years later to win what initially looked like a very unlikely second term.
READ ALSO: Nigeria’s renewable energy start-ups receive development grants to upscale
There can be little doubt that Shellacking 2.0 in November 2014 was a clear vote of no confidence in Obama! The Republicans have secured control of the Senate and House of Representatives with the largest House majority since 1928 when the GOP held 270 House seats! The Republicans now hold a 52-44 Senate majority (and rising?) with net gain of seven seats and no losses, winning Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, etc. Republicans also hold a 244-184 majority in the lower house with a net gain of 12 seats. The Republican romp was also reflected in the governorship races with surprising victories in Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Ohio, amongst others. This time, even democratic candidates avoided campaigning with Obama, with most seeking to distance themselves from his policies and the Obama administration!
In my opinion and based on review of the election analysis including some exit poll results, six major factors weighed on the minds of the 36.4 percent of registered US voters who voted in the mid-term elections – economy and jobs; the US Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”); foreign policy and in particular the heightened threat of Islamic radicalism from ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Nusrah, etc across the world; immigration; energy policy; and issues of culture, leadership and trust. On all of these considerations, voters scored the Obama administration poorly and expressed serious doubts about the direction in which he was taking the country. I agree with pundits and Republican partisans who expressed the view that the voters’ mandate was essentially to stop Obama from realising his policy preferences in all of these areas.
It is possible to argue that with regard to the economy, voters voted their hearts rather than the facts, which appeared to indicate progress – GDP growth rising to 3.4 percent in recent data and unemployment declining to 6 percent – but voters worry about the quality of the recovery and the jobs and do not yet feel the recovery. Obamacare has been bedevilled with a failed launch, rising premiums for people with existing health insurance and a general apprehension by middle-class voters; Obama’s foreign policy has been characterised by dithering, a lack of clarity and leadership and even concerns about what the president’s real objectives are. The government showed an inclination to go to war in Syria on the same side as Al Qaeda affiliates, ISIS and other sectarian extremists groups until the UK Parliament and Russia aborted that plan; and US weakness, appeasement, liberal political correctness and absence of pragmatic leadership have seen a global environment which this column characterised several weeks back as “Obama’s mess”. Voters may also have been wary of Obama’s threat of unilateral action through executive orders to change immigration policy, and beyond immigration may have developed concerns about a leader who seemed determined to rush his liberal agenda through in his limited remaining tenure with or without the consent of Congress. It also appears that many voters prefer Republican platforms on energy, including approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project for exporting crude from Western Canada. Finally, it does seem faith in Obama’s leadership as well as trust in his instincts and mindset have declined amongst most Americans, including the democratic base, resulting in relatively low voter turn-out.
Obama has two years to reshape his legacy and, unfortunately, in the most inauspicious of circumstances – a Congress under the firm control of his adversaries and a demotivated and disillusioned support base. Unfortunately, it doesn’t help that democratic partisans and liberal pundits have done everything in the wake of their defeat, except hear the clear message from voters – that stronger, more pragmatic and collaborative and less ideologically-driven leadership is required of Obama, both within the US and across the world.
Opeyemi Agbaje
