In the years 2008 and 2012, America voted two different politicians into the Presidential office to fit the fiscal, social, war-time and emotional needs of the nation. Despite the drastic differences between these election years, both of these politicians voted into office are named Barack Hussein Obama.
In party affiliation, speech style and DNA, Barack Obama is the same politician in 2012 that he was in 2008. But the similarities stop there. One only needs to look at his two different victory speeches to see that Barack Obama is a very different man and will most likely be a very different president than the man elected in 2008.
Think back to 2008. You will remember a very different America. In December of 2007, America experienced the beginnings of an economic downturn comparable to the Great Depression. Sound extreme? It sounds this way for good reason. The real estate market crashed, banks crashed, the job market crashed. Barack Obama and John McCain had the privilege of running for presidency amidst a panicking and fearful America.
What did John McCain run on? The importance of dealing with the problems of our nation first before we can even dream of helping other nations. He came before America as a veteran from Arizona- conservative guns blazing. What did Barack Obama run on? Hope. Plain and simple. He came before America bright-eyed, bushy-tailed with one term as senator under his belt.
Experience is not what America needed in 2008. In 2008, America needed someone who represented newness; a coming up from the ashes. America wanted to be able to say “We are still the greatest nation on the planet.” So America chose “hope” and “progress”- exactly what Barack Obama was promising.
Everything Obama stood for and everything America needed is evident in Obama’s 2008 victory speech. In this speech, Obama paints a picture of a new America. In order to achieve this America, Obama reminds the audience of his excitement to reach across the aisle- figuratively and literally- to get things done (9 minutes in). He then talks about the need for Americans to be willing to help each other (9:50). Obama states that it is time to get rid of the partisanship that has held back American progress (10:10). After aligning himself with Lincoln (11:00), Obama declares that “a new dawn of American leadership is at hand” (11:30). America’s newly elected President wraps up his speech with the statement that the true genius of America is her ability to change (12:30).
The speech oozes of hope. The President Elect’s optimism for the nation is not to be brushed off or taken lightly; as naive or perhaps unrealistic as Obama’s speech, goals and intentions for the nation may seem now, this is exactly what the nation wanted and desperately needed at the time.
Fast-forward four years and the political race for the presidency looks completely different. Instead of the staunchly conservative veteran from Arizona, the Republican Party chose a younger, more moderate Governor from Massachusetts. Instead of the young, hopeful activist from Chicago, the Democratic Party chose to send in a much more experienced, more liberal candidate than before. Here’s the punchline: the Democratic candidate of 2012 was the same man as in 2008. Technically.
America in 2008 was very different from America in 2012. America in 2012 is coming out of the economic crisis of 2007. Students are not expected to drop out of college if they cannot afford it. People who have lived in this country their whole lives but are not citizens are being given the opportunity to be considered legitimate and contribute to society. Health care is considered a right, not a privilege.
So why is Obama still the man for the job? He has grown with the nation. The man who gave the presidential victory speech of 2012 is a very different man from the one in 2008. Instead of emphasizing the ability to reach across the aisle, this man discussed the need to move forward no matter what. Instead of encouraging politicians to put aside their party affiliations to work together, he celebrated the ability of our nation to argue and disagree- after all, this is democracy. Instead of championing the new type of leadership entering America, he embodied it.
When considering the nation’s growth and Obama’s transformation, his politics play a role but not nearly as significant as one would think. What is so astounding about Barack Obama is that, while he has had to become a new man, he has been the man America has wanted and needed for the past two elections. One may say that this isn’t new or significant- a great majority of Presidents have received their opportunity at their second term. While this may be true, three things cannot be ignored:
1) America in 2012 looks very different from America of 2008
2) President Elect Obama in 2012 looks very different from President Elect Obama in 2008
3) Both Obamas have been exactly what the nation called upon at the time
You make really good points and I completely agree that President Obama is a different politician (and I'm sure person) than he was 4 years ago. I would hope that anyone would be after the experiences that he has been through serving as President of the United States in such trying times for our nation. In thinking about why it is that he won in 2012, it's important to look at who he was running against. In 2008, the country needed someone like Obama to provide a welcomed "change" in terms of governing styles and overall outlook on the world. It isn't difficult to understand why he beat John McCain handily. However, with dwindling approval ratings and a still weak economy, 2012 was a bit of a different story. 2012 may have been a choice of the lesser of two evils. Not to say that either is evil, but neither candidate provided all that much excitement for the general public. In comparison to 2008, the excitement around Obama's candidacy was lacking. No one really knew exactly what Romney would do as president and many conservatives either didn't agree with him on a religious basis or didn't think that he was conservative enough. The uncertainly surrounding Romney's plans, I believe, was his ultimate downfall due to the fact that undecided voters make all the difference in presidential elections. While Obama was a different person, and maybe not viewed as an ideal candidate by many, he was still a much better choice than the alternative. (As an aside, I am still excited about the prospects of Obama's tenure in office, this was just how I believe the general public/undecided voters saw the election)
ReplyDeleteI was honestly disappointed with Obama's campaign this year even though I support him and voted for him. In 2008, he inspired the nation. This year I felt both campaigns were uninspiring and based on critiquing the opponent. I agree with Sarah that the public/undecided voters viewed Obama as the lesser of two evils. I think this election has left the country extremely divided and I think reunited the country will be one of Obama's challenges in the coming years.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree. While my post was not necessarily about how the public perceived Obama, I think he still had an amazing following. I do not think this election was about choosing the "lesser of two evils" at all but more about how each American wanted to see this nation grow and through what means they wanted this growth to occur. As a result of his nomination in 2008, Obama awakened a large population of voters who historically have not shown up to the polls. Two of these groups include African Americans and college students. If this election were about choosing the lesser of two evils, I believe these populations would have become disenchanted once again. I think people wanted to see what Obama would be able to do with four more years: Will he be able to keep so many of the promises made in 2008? Only time will tell.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting how you analyzed parts of his previous speech and his recent inauguration speech. I have also noticed the change in tone of Obama's speeches now, how they're a lot more toned down.
ReplyDeleteI feel like Obama came in as President hopeful and inspired to do drastic amounts of change. He believed he could change the world. But after four years, the reality of the world made him and everyone realize that one President will probably not change the course of history forever (there are a few exceptions, of course, such as Woodrow Wilson and his declaration of the end of isolationism, resulting in America's participation in WWI). In such a bipartisan America, it is difficult to instigate real, permanent change when there are constant battles within both Houses and the Senate.
While Obama may not be as inspiration as he was four years ago, I just think that's because he's become more realistic. He has finally realized that that hope and change he had promised four years ago - it may not be as easy as he had envisioned.
I think in any economic downturn any two candidates would have been considered a lesser of two evils. The general attitude of Americans to their own government in this decade has been negative overall. In a time of positive growth I'm sure not one would consider either Romney or Obama particularly evil. Regardless, I thought more independents voted for Romney than Obama (correct me if I'm wrong...) - Obama just happened to have the backing of a new voting beast. So I'm not sure if he really inspired the undecided as much as he has grown a permanent backing amongst minorities and the youth over the last four years.
ReplyDeleteEven though President Obama was more serious and almost jaded in his victory speech in 2012, I really like that he briefly alluded back to his 2008 campaign by mentioning "hope." Since people were expecting a more exciting and inspirational campaign, him going back to 2008 in his victory speech was safe, but more than safe, it reminded people of the person they initially voted into office. It reminded me why he was the incumbent. It was almost refreshing to remember.
ReplyDeleteIn 2012, the votes of minority voters did increase. For instance, more African-Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008. This just goes to show that though people were disappointed with his campaign approach in 2012, it did serve its purpose and was effective, in a different way than that of 2008.
JS, I love your comment concerning the increase in minority participation from 2008 to 2012. I think the increase just shows that Obama's initial presidency was not a fluke, an accident or a one-time historical event. I believe Obama running for President opened the door to political participation for many people who had never before considered the political arena an arena which belonged to them. Obama's reelection serves to show the importance of symbolic representation (representation that looks like the people they are representing). It is my hope that Obama's election and reelection will only increase the ability of and necessity for diversity to increase within elected offices and this increase in diversity will increase civilian participation.
ReplyDeleteWe definitely did elect a different President this year. A man who came into office with so much hope (not to mention with also a very naive attitude), seems to have taken a step back this year. His speech made him sound almost jaded with the whole process and much more willing to focus on HIS goals, rather than work across the aisle to make everyone happy.
ReplyDeleteI must say, I appreciated Barack Obama's speech this year much better. He is a great public speaker, but I feel that he often is too optimistic and inspirational that you can't really understand what he truly wants to get accomplished. I felt that his more straightforward speech this year made me respect him more as a politician because he appeared much more in control and aware of how he could get it done.
I think part of why the tone has changed to the point that it seems like a different person was elected has to do with the experience. President Obama has undergone some hardening by being in the Presidency that I think has pulled him out of infancy and made him more realistic in what could get done. It's almost as if in the first term he was like a kid in a candy shop and now he is the father with the invisible child at the store.
ReplyDelete