Why the highly imperfect Barack Obama deserves to be--and will be--re-elected

President Barack Obama has succeeded in doing some of what he said he would do during his campaign four years ago, and he has failed to accomplish other goals he set forth at that time.  Oddly, there is a single common thread running through both successes and failures -- political compromise.  This is why he deserves to be reelected, and it is why he will be reelected.

Americans, for the most part, are in favor of political compromise.  In a prior posting you can read about the polling results showing that big majorities of those who identify themselves as Democrats and as Independents favor compromise.  This is how the middle of the political road is found.  Unfortunately, the leader who works through compromise is usually a disappointment to some, and perhaps even a villain to others.  Nowhere near a perfect outcome, is it?

The successes

Obamacare, as enacted, is a compromise.  It's based on the long-standing, market-based fee-for-service healthcare model that the country has always used.  Liberals would have preferred moving towards a single-payer system; conservatives would have preferred less, rather than more, regulation.  As President, Barack Obama succeeded with a compromise that found the middle of the road.

The Federal stimulus program of 2009 was a compromise.  Liberals--those of us, anyway, who describe ourselves as economic Keynesians--wanted a program that would have been at least twice its eventual size.  Conservatives--Republicans, in this case--apparently wanted nothing.  That's another compromise and another middle of the road.

New regulations for the financial system and continuation of the "Bush tax cut" income tax rates are the results of Obama's apparent proclivity to seek consensus since neither side in the debates came away in the end with all that was desired.  Political consensus is achieved only through political compromise.

The failures

He has failed to plan for the proper management of the Federal debt; for the closing of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay; for increased effectiveness of environmental protection in the face of an onslaught of global warming consequences; and there's no doubt that the rates of joblessness and underemployment are too high.  But for each of these, Barack Obama has proposed worthy, if imperfect, programs; and all of them have been stymied by a Republican-led House of Representatives.

The voters recognize that the Republicans have blockaded these proposals, and they know this not because it is somebody's opinion, but they know this because elected Republicans and the GOP have boasted of having done so.  And that helps to build the case for Obama as a compromiser and middle-roader.  Extraordinary, perhaps, but true.

The swinging door

The campaign for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has primarily been one of looking for votes from people who don't like Barack Obama, his policies and his successes.  In this case, the successes are presented as failures, but such a presentation is political posturing.  If the man said he would do something and he made it happen, then it's a success, even if you don't agree with it.  This is a door that swings both ways in politics; sometimes the Republicans push harder to swing it in their direction, and other times it's the Democrats who do that.

The swinging political door isn't new, and it doesn't help all that much in winning elections.  It doesn't help because it sends a mostly negative message.  Both campaigns have indulged in negative advertising, but the Romney Republican campaign has mired itself in that environment.  As a result, any message promoting the specifics of what to expect in a Romney presidency is muted.

The election

In other words, where Barack Obama as President has succeeded, there is no specific evidence from the Republican campaign on how Mitt Romney as President would succeed further.  And, where Barack Obama has failed, there are likewise no specific proposals on how a Romney presidency would yield better results.  The Republican campaign spouts dogma--such as, decrease tax rates for the rich because they create jobs--but there are no specific proposals regarding how to make such a thing happen when it has never happened before. 

On the contrary, the specifics of the Romney campaign include such things as signing the Norquist "no new taxes" pledge, and publicly stating during the Republican primaries that a hypothetical offer of $10 in Federal spending cuts in return for $1 for new taxes would be unacceptable because that would amount to a compromise.  People want compromise.  That's the way the American government has succeeded for over two hundred years.  (What could be more "conservative" than continuing to do things the way that they have been done for two centuries and more?)

When confronted with the choice between the imperfections of the compromiser that is Obama, and the likely poor governance that will result from the lack of well-thought and carefully presented details that have so far been the hallmark that is Romney, the American voters will choose Barack Obama.