With the conclusion of the Democratic primaries in the United States, and Hillary Clinton’s concession to Barak Obama, the first stage of the United States presidential elections has come to an end. In spite of a surge in the primaries by Mrs Clinton in the latter part of the campaign, Obama has been able to hold his own in terms of the delegate count, as well as in terms of a slow but persistent drift of the party’s superdelegates to him.
As has been widely observed, this primary campaign has been unusual in the sense that the outcome was bound to be historic – the selection of the first woman, or of the first African-American as a presidential candidate. The supporters of Senator Clinton have been particularly vociferous on her behalf, and she herself has been prone, during her campaign, to make a strong appeal to feminist sentiment. Senator Obama has not been as keen to emphasise the historical characteristic of his situation, no doubt because, in that curious American state of race relations, it has been felt that too overt support of Afro-Americans for him, would scare off voters from white, and even Latino, populations.
In the primary campaign, Clinton has sought to paint a picture of herself as a highly competent actor in terms of decision-making at the presidential level, and as a persistent vote-getter as Senator from New York. Her campaign has tried to portray Obama as young and inexperienced in American decision-making and political life. Obama on the other hand has sought to portray himself as representative of a new generation of Americans, and American politicians, anxious to move away from the “old” style of politics, either in terms of campaigning in elections and presenting the issues to the electorate. And he has tried to paint Clinton as representative of the tendency to rely on traditional attitudes to resolving problems in both the domestic and international arenas.
Now that the primary campaign is over, Mrs Clinton has done what the Democratic electorate would have expected of her – to rally immediately to Obama and to assure the supporters of the party that she will be a forthright campaigner on his behalf. An important objective of this is to ensure that the tremendous support she has had from women will be transferred to its presidential candidate.
So the attention of the American people is now turned to the two contenders representing the Democrats and the Republicans. Senator McCain, after a slow start among ostensibly
more dynamic Republican candidates, has proven that he has a certain resilience firstly in terms of his capacity to persevere; secondly in terms of his capacity to sustain a vigorous campaign although his health has not always been good given his Vietnam experience; and finally in terms of his capacity to effectively manage a five-year term as president at the age of 72. He has also tried to contrast himself to Senator Obama, in terms of the latter’s limited experience in decision-making at the national level.
Soundings from the electorate suggest, however, that while it is concerned about all these issues, the main ones remain two: the state of the American economy and the continued American presence in Iraq. The combined housing and banking crises, and then the effect of the rise of the American dollar in terms of inflation in food and petroleum prices, continue to grip the electorate’s mind. There is a certain confusion among the electorate as to why these situations have arisen, and become so hazardous to their welfare.
Americans are not accustomed to hearing, or accepting, that events external to their country cannot be susceptible to their control.
President Bush ends his term as a highly unpopular President, and this in turn limits his ability to vigorously support McCain’s campaign. Thus, even on the issue of Iraq, McCain has tried to find a position distinct from that of the Bush without looking as though he has turned away from a Republican administration. But in the popular mind, McCain has come to be known as a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and its aftermath.
On the other hand, Obama should now be the beneficiary of popular causes supported by Mrs Clinton during the primaries. He should also be able to draw on the wealth of Democratic expertise, now that some of Clinton’s advisers are free to gravitate to him. The American population’s memory of the last Democratic administration, that of President Bill Clinton, is one of a growing economy, relative economic prosperity for the ordinary man and woman, and an inclination to non-intervention in the military sense in affairs outside of the country. As factors unfavourable to Obama, the peccadilloes of the Clinton era will not count for much.
From a Caribbean point of view, the extent to which the candidates’ policies, if one or other is elected, can have positive or negative effects for us, is still an open question. Both candidates will attempt to move to the centre, somewhat, in spite of Obama’s attempt to present himself as an innovator in policy-making.
During the primary elections, Obama has presented himself as critical of the free trade orientation which President Bush has pursued. He has even threatened to renegotiate the NAFTA agreement because of what some commentators paint as its beneficial effects being more favourable to Canada and Mexico, than to the US. McCain is sticking to the free trade posture of the Bush administration, particularly as this relates to the countries of Latin America.
On this free trade issue, both candidates are aware of a certain negative attitude in the American Congress, and this can have implications for a Caricom which is seeking a renewal, or positive replacement, of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act which encompasses the Caribbean Basin Initiative. This is a tricky issue at this time, a situation indicated by the President’s difficulty in obtaining Congressional approval for free trade agreements for Colombia and Panama. So on this issue, regardless of who becomes President, Caricom diplomacy will have its hands full to obtain what we want.
On the issue of Cuba, it appears that Senator Obama is more favourable to a non-intervention stance towards that country. He also favours a stance that would seek to satisfy the desire of many Cubans in Florida in particular, for some modus vivendi, that can allow freer movement to Cuba and unhindered dispatch of funds and various commodities to the country. Senator McCain would appear to be staying with the Bush approach. Whose policies prevail after the elections will affect us, given Caricom’s interest in strengthening economic relations with Cuba, in the context of its political and economic transition.
To the extent that the candidates’ policies on the Middle East can have significance for us, Obama indicates a more moderate approach to the Palestine issue, and has been emphasizing his original vote in the Senate against the invasion of Iraq. McCain hews to the current line, with the suggestion that he can determine a path for withdrawal of most American troops within a reasonable period. On the other hand, Obama has recently hardened his support for Israel. He is no doubt highly conscious of the traditional Jewish support for the Democratic Party.
As the campaign evolves, we shall see whether the domestic issues dominate over the external issues as objects of the electorate’s concern. The issue of hemispheric migration to the US is itself an issue increasing in salience. During President Bush’s terms, there have been a variety of visits by Caribbean leaders to the White House. On issues of concern to us, however, there has not been much movement. Is there any way in which our issues can be filtered into the presidential, and particularly the congressional campaigns as time goes on?
