Three days ahead of the elections in the US The Economist has reluctantly picked its horse.
Going by the article's gist it does so out of a lack of a solid alternative than for the incumbent's allegedly chequered record and, importantly, unknown future promise.
But Barack Obama, to the best of my ability to assess America from the safe distance of a pond, has done enough over his 4-year term to deserve a second one.
Indeed, unless a President screws up real bad in the first term he does actually need two to deliver meaningfully on main policy choices. This is much more so given the parlous state of America's economy and financial position back in 2007/8.
The Obama Administration's achievements on many fronts of domestic and foreign policy can in no way be understated. All countries have their own built-in inertias that are hard to move/remove. In the US's case the opposition camp gathered around the GOP is particularly tough on a wide range of issues which is why American society has become so severely polarised.
However light-heartedly, that "The Economist" should renew its endorsement of the Democrat Barack Obama to the White House is itself an indictment of Mitt Romney's failure to make a convincing case but also a confirmation of the current Administration's proven overall track-record.
The latter shows a fair number of accomplishments despite an awful starting line and a fast changed/changing world economic context.
America is no longer immune to many interplaying variables from outside its borders.
While the rest of the world may still catch cold when America sneezes - unevenly though - America may also get a rough ride when the world stalls...
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário