I find it extremely interesting how events can change the outcome of an election. In 2004, Kerry was blown out of the water by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. One could argue that had these advertisements not aired, Kerry could have narrowly defeated Bush in the polls. On the other hand, it was always highly unlikely that Kerry would win because a) most Americans probably did not want to vote in a new president in the middle of a war; b) most Americans tend to vote for the incumbent; and c) I think that while many Americans were becoming aware of what I believe are the illegal and immoral acts the Bush administration has perpetrated (torture, wire-taps on citizens, etc.) there were still enough ignorant people out there. I mean ignorant of the actions, not necessarily ignorant in intelligence but it can go both ways.
Many argue that Bill Clinton won in 1992 because the economy was not doing well. It seems that this is happening again with Obama. Because the economy is so poorly, voters are turning to Democrats to fix it. I feel there is another argument to be made that they are simply turning to the party not currently in power. Had George H. W. Bush been a Democrat and Clinton a Republican I believe there is still every possibility that Clinton would have won, simply because he was of the other party. I also believe the same goes for the current election. Many more Americans are tired of the Bush Republican party with its rampant quasi-fascism, hard-line right-wing values and poor economic management that they are now turning to the other party. Again I ask, however, if George W. Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican would the same be happening? I believe yes.
While I acknowledge that the argument also exists that Obama is the stronger candidate in the eyes of many people it is hard to argue that McCain is any less so. He is certainly a man with extensive public service experience and, yes I will concede, more foreign policy experience than Obama. I suppose, however, that at this moment in time most Americans are not as concerned with foreign policy so much as domestic policy.
The reason I put forward this question/argument that the current events in America are potentially changing the outcome of the current election is because the same may happen here in Britain at the next election but the opposite may occur. If David Cameron’s Conservative party win the next election – and there appears to be every chance that they may – then the voters in Britain will have shown they believe conservatism rather than liberalism will manage their country better.
I truly believe that while political parties mean something to a small handful of individuals – the die-hard political animals such as myself – the majority of people are so centrist or so able to be influenced that they will vote for whomever is in power if they are happy with the current state of affairs or for whomever is in opposition if they are not happy. I know someone who voted Communist for his first vote just to be different. He has voted Labour or Liberal Democrat ever since and in no way could be labeled a Tory but yet he has said he will likely vote Conservative at the next election because he feels there should be give and take. Labour have had their shot at power, now it is the Conservatives’ turn he says.
I find this dichotomy very interesting. America and Britain are both facing the worst economic crises in living memory but their voters are responding in very different ways. I do need to point out, however, that Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s approval ratings have gone up due to his management of the crisis. The British people do seem to think he is doing a good job; however, this is a blip in the polls. Since Brown came into power almost 18 months ago Labour’s approval ratings have slipped dramatically. For the past year polls have shown that if an election were held that day, the Conservative party would win in a near-landslide. There is also no election scheduled as yet and none due to take place until 2010 at the latest so all of my talk of British voters turning to the Conservative party is conjectured.
I think my friend’s point of give and take is certainly valid. There are times when the leaders of a particular political party do not possess the qualities needed to run a country or manage a poor economy. I am a die-hard Democrat though, and not ashamed to say I’m a Liberal. I know most Americans abhor the term Liberal and associate it closely with Socialist but there are distinct differences. The point I am trying to make here is that I find the current election in America so very interesting on so many different levels. Yes, it is historic that a black man will likely be the next president. Yes, I am happy to see the Republican Party taking such a beating. But the poor economy in America, I believe, is greatly altering the outcome of this election. I am not saying Obama could not have won without this crisis but I do feel it would have been harder to do so. Current events in America will always affect elections. It is those current events that spur voters to choose between the two candidates. What is interesting is that because of this particular event Obama and the Democratic Party are experiencing resurgence. I simply wonder if the party labels actually mean anything. If the parties were reversed would Obama still be winning just because he is of the opposition party? It’s certainly food for thought.
