Anatole Kaletsky
Enter our Snapshots of Summer photography competition
It might appear obvious that Barack Obama's election, alongside the Democratic landslide in Congress, has offered the new Administration the clearest possible mandate to transform America's society. But conservative commentators are already hard at work to deny the existence of any such mandate.
Conservative pundits, drawing paradoxical comfort from the public's revulsion at the Bush Administration, argue that the Democratic victory was merely an inevitable, almost mechanical, swing of the political pendulum. After all, America's economy is collapsing, its military is stuck in two bloody quagmires, its government is run by an ignorant dolt, now universally recognised as a national embarrassment. Against this background, a big Democratic victory was only be expected. The true surprise was that their victory was far less comprehensive than the landslides of 1964, 1972 and 1984.
If anything, these conservatives argue, the competitive nature of the race proved yet again that America, beneath the discontented surface, remains a conservative or at least a centre-right nation. Indeed the emollient-sounding phrase “centre-right nation” has suddenly become the mantra of Karl Rove and other zealots who used to describe themselves proudly as “conservative revolutionaries”.
But is this “centre-right” description justified? Not any longer when it comes to social mores. The election of the first black president - who happens to be a brilliant and unabashed intellectual with a left-wing record on the environment, healthcare, abortion and gun control - will surely transform social attitudes and redirect the bias of the Supreme Court. His victory inflicts a crushing defeat on the Nixon-Reagan coalition of xenophobic working-class social conservatives and tax-allergic small businessmen.
America's social make-up has changed since the late 1960s as the races have mixed and university education has become more widespread. The conservatism of the southern and western states has waned as they have become financial and research centres, and liberally educated knowledge workers have replaced manual workers as the country's dominant social class.
Mr Obama managed to administer a death-blow to the Nixon-Reagan coalition by adding a powerful new weapon to the steady demographic change - the participation of young and ethnic-minority voters who had felt disenfranchised. Their commitment, which I saw with my own eyes last week when I visited Pennsylvania, where my daughter, brought up as a girl in America, was working with military efficiency for seven days a week and 16 hours a day in a tireless army of highly-qualified volunteers. With this new generation of voters now fully engaged in US politics, the balance of power is likely to shift in the “culture wars”.
America's attitude to the outside world and to military power may also be transformed by the rise of this cosmopolitan younger generation, born after the wrenching divisions of Vietnam. It is perhaps significant that Mr Obama was the first presidential candidate neither to have gone to Vietnam nor been forced to make excuses for avoiding service. It is far from clear that America under Mr Obama will remain a militaristic “centre-right nation”.
What then is left of the “centre-right nation” epithet? America, almost everyone still believes, will remain a nation committed to the free market revolution and allergic to the “European-style socialism” of state intervention. The supposed evidence for this belief is, first, the moderate scale of the Democratic victory, and secondly the nature of the campaign itself, which focused more on the failures of the Bush Administration than on any detailed plans by Mr Obama for economic reform.
Unfortunately for free-market economics, with which I have much sympathy, neither of these claims stands up. Both the exit polls and the votes cast in the congressional elections suggest that the many Americans who hesitated to vote for Mr Obama did so because of his race, his personal background or his lack of foreign policy experience, not because of the leftward tilt in economic policy. If they wanted to respond directly to public opinion, Democrats would probably move further to the left after this election.
A second reason for regarding the election as a genuine mandate for economic change is even clearer. The decisive phase of the campaign was dominated entirely by economics, specifically by a clear debate over taxes, income distribution and public spending - and Tuesday's vote was the verdict on this debate. Until mid-September, the two parties were roughly even. But after the incompetence of the Bush Administration triggered the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, Mr McCain's campaign was, to its evident discomfort, forced to concentrate on economic issues.
Mr McCain offered the same old Reaganite nostrums of cutting taxes and government waste - but these were preposterously irrelevant in the present financial crisis.
The sharp division between the two candidates' economic philosophies was personified by Mr McCain's constant invocations of Joe the Plumber, the supposedly quintessential middle-American worker who objects as a matter of principle to redistributive taxes (Mr McCain relentlessly hammered Mr Obama's plan to raise taxes on incomes above $250,000). It was symbolised rhetorically by Mr McCain's increasing use of the terms “socialist” in the last few days of the campaign and his bizarre efforts to turn the phrase “spread the wealth around” into a term of abuse.
Voters resoundingly rejected the Republicans' single-minded focus on low taxes and small government. Having elected Mr Obama, the American people will demand big economic changes. And given the urgency of the financial crisis, Mr Obama would do well to signal these changes within days, rather than waiting until he is inaugurated on January 20. With luck, he will quickly appoint a team of experienced officials who understand that free enterprise is perfectly compatible with regulation, a moderately redistributive tax system and a stronger safety net than Americans currently enjoy.
It is irrelevant whether the new policies are described as centre-right or centre-left. What matters is whether they work - first by stabilising the financial system and then by averting prolonged recession.
The most urgent task of all is to replace the Bush Administration's economic team, whose dogmatism and incompetence was largely responsible for the sudden financial crisis. If Mr Obama can do this, he has every chance of successfully carrying out his mandate to change America for the better.
Anatole Kaletsky writes for The Times Comment pages on Thursdays. One of the country's leading commentators on economics, he was formerly Economics Editor and is now Editor-at-large of The Times. He has won many awards for his financial and political journalism. Before joining The Times, he worked for 12 years on the Financial Times
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the collective power of smart thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Flip MinoHD Camcorder
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
42,945
2008
71,450
Car Insurance
Not Specified
MI6
UK-based
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Save up to £1,000 per couple with Elite Vacations at the five-star Constance Lemuria Resort
and do the British Isles this Summer.
Save up to 60% with Oxford Hotels and Inns
Try our inspiring luxury holidays to the Indian Subcontinent and South East Asia.
Great offers available
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
a slew of popular books were written in europe just a few years back postulating with conviction that america was permanently dank, cramped and conservative. i hoped not everyone was so cynical about us. i want to thank those of you who knew we existed. it helped us carry on and eventually win.
patty capet, west bristol, usa
ruination isn't even a word...
lll, co,
jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA
Mr Bush won with just 50.7% in the last election, yet governed, polarised and divided like no other before him. The most dangerous times are behind us...
Jonathan Wright, London, UK
Obama has received no mandate, it was no landslide. If all the first time voters hadn't voted he wouldn't even be in office. It was absolutley the bandwagon effect in this election. The people who got him in don't realize what they voted for.
John, sarasota, US
Look at the stats to see why Obama won. It was the youth vote. This group has no recollection of the economically pathetic 1970's that resulted from Johnson's Great Society and US drift towards Socialism that ended with the defeat of Carter. They are not aware of the consequences of their vote.
Tony, Novato, USA
When will you liberals own up to the fact that Barney Frank, Chriss Dodd and a Democratic Congress are also to blame for this mess. You like to throw it all on the Bush Administration and they deserve a huge share of the blame. But why shouldn't the Democratic Congress share in the blame?
Ed, Houston, USA
Landslide? When did 52% become a landslide? But that aside the democrats control congress and the White House now, and we want them to fulfill their promises...or in 4 years you see a real landslide the other way.
valwayne, Denver, USA
In 2004, Bush said he had a mandate with "political capital" to spend even though he "won" with far less votes than Obama. Last Tuesday, 56.6 million people voted for McCain and 64.2 million people voted for Obama. That's 7.6 million MORE for the president-elect.
Paloma, Bay Area, USA
Given the fact that the electoral college system over emphases the victor, it would be better to look at actual vote counts. This is not a left wing victory! People were concerned about the economy and more slightly the war, which is finishing any way, at least in Iraq. So no Left wing victory!
Tony Spurgin, San Diego, USA
Frightening.
charles stubbart, chicago illinois, usa
"...with a left-wing record on the environment, healthcare, abortion and gun control..."
Obama campaigned as a moderate/centrist against his liberal record -- a so called "supporter" of the 2nd Amendment, for example. Many of us are wondering just which Obama will show up in Jan.
Keith, Chicago, USA
I believe John McCain made a most magnanimous speech in defeat, something Obama, in his sense of triumphalism, hasn't the grace or courage to acknowledge: he doesn't deserve my respect.
ian cheese, london, uk
I think the mandate here is to give the US competent responsible government. It would be a mistake to interpret the election as a mandate for "left-wing" government, if one can use that term about the US.
Vivian, Vancouver, Canada
I think that once the US gets used to a black family in the white house and see that Obama is not a socialist they will feel more comfortable and hopefully reelect him with an even bigger mandate. The demographics have changed.
marianne hinton, london, uk
It should be obvious that 51-48 cannot be considered a crushing efeat or a mandate. It is a clear defeat, yet 48 million voters will not just melt into the woodwork, they will not go away
bernard ross, st anns bay, jamaica
There is no clear mandate to move anything left of center. Moderate conservatives and independents are what pushed Obama over the line the other night and the economy was the catalyst, nothing more nothing less.
charles Jackson, kenosha wi, usa
The US has never been a conservative nation. It has however been willing to indulge it self in its prejudices and fears. For once it was pretty clear that we need a leader who knows what he is about, much as in 1932. I hope we have chosen as well this time! Good luck and God speed to Barack Obama
Ed Mahan, Marlborough, USA
America is neither conservative nor liberal as a nation. It is a federal republic composed of sovereign states with their own particular dominant ideologies. These states vote in blocs, and different blocs win out at different times.
Cottonus Matherus, Boston, Massachusetts
Jon, the ridiculous right cared not when they inflicted a crushing defeat on more than 50% of the american populace (8 yrs of Cheney/Bush).. We have given Barack a mandate. It is time for change.
bobby, Cookeville, TN, USA
The tribal differences of US political groupings are deeply felt but more emotional than rational. Xenophobic right wing media are controlled by corporate interests. The generational change has blown this cover and will move the massive country gradually greener and further left. Yippee!
Bob, Toronto, Canada
This from the man who spent ten years telling us that Gordon Brown was an economic genius and that the fact that US savings ratio was negligible did not matter (at least while Clinton was President). Kaletsky's most useful contribution would be a long period of silence.
michael mcgowan, London, UK
they have elected herbert hoover again. except this time it is after the crash rather than before it. obama is a protectionist just like hoover was and we all know what great things protectionism did for the global ecconomy after the wall street crash
will, grimsby, uk
The persistence of support for the Social Darwinism hailed by the right over the last 30 years is disheartening. Whatever happened to the charity, mercy and forebearance Dickens called for in "A Christmas Carol?" It has died with unbridled capitalism, dogmatic conservatism & unabashed self-interest.
Brett, Virginia Beach, VA, USA
I can't see how 52% - only slightly over half a simple majority is a mandate to do anything. Perhaps you can explain this "logic" in detail?
Michael Schaaf, Cincinnati, USA
52-47 is no mandate for liberalism. But for the insane bias of the broadcast media, the election could have gone the other way.
James, London, UK
I think there has been a wake up by large numbers of Americans who have realised they are not hugely wealthy, and are unlikely to become so.
$250,000 is a way above average salary, and sympathy for people in this bracket was only sustained when ordinary people felt they could get there.
Nick, France,
52-47 is not a 'crushing defeat'. I think Americans wish something different, but not too different. I'm not sure we have worked out just what, but McCain wasn't it. Many people are shouting 'realignment' as if it has already done. That is wrong; what this election has done is opened an opportunity.
Don , London,
Although I support Obama for Gods Sake!! The Democrats are as much to blame as the Republicans for the financial crises and the economic downturn and maybe even more so for it was THEY under Clinton who decided to deregulate Wall Street
Mark, London,
Glad to hear you brought your daughter up as a girl - it saves confusion later on.
In this period of financial crisis, vague leftish promises to redistribute wealth are very appealing, especially to the young who haven't worked much for their own wealth, but when better times return, what then?
Simon, Brussels,
I'm liberal myself, but I see no mandate for liberalism. Americans are fearing for their jobs and retirement accounts, first and foremost. Obama had to run on a low tax platform to be elected. Americans want low taxes and high prosperity, and will choose the candidate most likely to provide both.
Adrian, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Interesting but not very convincing. I'm sure many white folk voted for Obama because they supported his policies. But how many "ethnics" simply voted for him because of his race ? Those at emotional, not thoughtful votes.....
John C Calhoun, Edinburgh, Scotland UK
Excellent points. But you have missed the reason for the voters rejection of "low taxes and small government". Americans hate hypocrites above all else. They wanted the Republicans out for singularly failing to do what they said they would do: control spending and shrink government.
Douglas Schmidt, Atlanta, USA
This is interesting happy-talk, but what happens when you inflict a "crushing defeat" on 48% of the electorate? What happens is that society becomes more polarised, and its divisions become sharper, because the defeated are fearful and feel themselves to be under siege. This is a dangerous time.
jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA
"The US is no longer a conservative nation. The Democrats have won a powerful mandate to move the country leftwards"
And it will be the ruination of them...
Zordana, Bucks, England