Dreams From My Father – Barack Obama

Following in the wake of his recent momentous election victory, Salonee Kakodkar reviews Barack Obama’s debut autobiography “Dreams From My Father”. Kadodkar reveals how a reading of these memoirs can reveal honest and unexpected home-truths about the man who has been granted four more years…

    Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama’s first impressively telling memoir, was published nine years before his Senate campaign and thirteen years before the Presidential elections. When republished in 2004, the autobiography soared to the #1 spot on the New York Times bestseller list. So what can we learn about the man behind the Presidential title by reading his book?

    Son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father whom he never knew, Obama grew up in Hawaii. The autobiographical conversation reads about his search of his “authentic” self all the way to Kenya, in search for the world of his deceased father. Throughout the text, Obama is able to entice the readers to agree with his opinions in one moment but is able to offer the reader counterintuitive thoughts which come across as just as persuasive. The search for his identity as a black American is deeply ingrained in elements of his everyday life; often this search acts as an ironic narration and comment about us all, as individuals.

   The current President of the United States, is able to write strikingly and genuinely about himself and gives readers an honest sense of what it was like to be brought up in the 1960s and 70’s – the feeling of recognising two worlds and associating with neither – and with the mighty task of being forced to forge an identity of his own.

    His journey comes full circle in Kenya, where he meets the African side of his family faces up to the truth of his father’s life. Moving through a country plagued by heart wrenching poverty and differences, but still holding onto a purpose of fortitude and hope, Obama discovers his connection with the people residing an ocean away by accepting their shared trials and coming to terms with his divided heritage. Will the truth set you free, or will it disappoint, Obama asks? Both it seems.

 

Article written by Salonee Kakodkar
Ed. Georgina Holland – Exeposé Online Books Editor

 

Why do we hate Mitt?

Picture credits VoteTimScott1

It has become pretty clear that the British public aren’t big fans of Mitt Romney, but why do we dislike him so?

It may be down to a general British centre-left stance, that is distasteful of the unashamed American right-wing tradition. Of course, the Democrats in the US are also far more right-wing than our politics is used to, but coupled with frequent bashing of the Republicans in political drama exported from the US and our own secular allergy to the religious aspect of neo-conservatives, it is easy to paint a demonic picture of Republicans in general, which tars Mr Romney too. Plus the guy is a Mormon, which is quite freaky to a nation that still views Roman Catholics as suspiciously exotic.

But Mitt Romney is not necessarily the Republican Party. Frequently presidential candidates are at odds with their party leadership thanks to the constitutional insulation of one from the other. And it may be only now that we have seen the debates that we are beginning to separate the man from the party and examine him, and finding that there are some genuine reasons why Romney should be considered for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Economics is the key battleground for the election and this is where Mr Romney is strongest. Much as we dislike him, his economic policies are not absurd, far from it. The US deficit will struggle to accommodate a further quantitive easing stimulus that could push the US out of its recession and the Democrat tax-and-spend approach may very well be the worst possible approach; increased taxes on the rich are unlikely to provide the boost that the economy needs or go anywhere even near clearing the deficit, and may possibly dry up much needed private-sector investment. Bear in mind that even the French, traditionally far more left-wing in taxation policy, are terrified of the effects of President Hollande’s new ‘combat budget’ with its massive top-tier taxes. Even if Romney’s policies do not directly stimulate the economy, then just the appearance of a highly pro-business administration in the White House may calm markets and convince people to begin investing again.

In social terms, I do disagree fundamentally with many GOP policies. And with a recession-based fearful swing to the right (almost always the electoral pattern in times of uncertainty) likely to allow Republicans to retain control of Congress, it is almost definite that a Republican Congress and a Republican President will end up passing legislation or enforcing repeals that will incense the left, and with good reason. But with the future of the world’s largest economy still far from steady, it may be necessary for the US to endure some social pain, if not backtracking, in return for strong government that can act quickly and avoid the gridlock that has halted much of President Obama’s agenda. While such a move would be unpalatable if not repulsive to many, we must bear in mind that Americans and the world would have far more damage to worry about following further collapse of the US economy than the Republican party could ever do.

Alex Carden

A roundup of the Presidential debates

Picture credits LeStudio1.com

STAYING awake until the unsociable hours of 3.30 in the morning on a weekday isn’t unheard of for many Exeter students. Doing it for the sole purpose to watch the American Presidential debates live just might be.

Critics question the actual influence of these events in swaying a mainly partisan electorate. Swing voters are often portrayed as highly intellectual political followers patiently weighing up the intricacies of policy before casting a decisive ballot. In reality they generally fit the description of ordinary people too busy working and living their lives to give a damn.  Obama hasn’t exactly lived up to wild expectations – he hasn’t saved the world (or America) and those drunken scenes of jubilation four years ago have been replaced by something rather more sobering. Still, when your alternative choice is a multi-millionaire Mormon representing the same party as George Bush it’s not surprising to see everyone isn’t all that optimistic.

Romney fought through a slew of insane, inadequate and ludicrous candidates to emerge as the President’s challenger in the political soap opera that was the Republican Primaries: Herman Cain’s sex scandal; Newt Gingrich’s US moon colony and Michelle Bachman’s ‘pray away the gay clinic’ spring to mind. Anti-abortion proposals and the rejection of both climate change and evolution tend to sit less comfortably on this more liberal side of the pond.

And while not all the candidates agreed on these issues the sheer number who did is something I find both highly amusing and slightly disturbing.

Bruised and battered from such ordeals and facing a skilful and experienced debater in President Obama, most expected Romney to come off badly in the opening battle. Polling suggested a narrow but decisive lead for Obama and the election looked almost sown up.

But Romney came out swinging against a lethargic and passive President – constantly attacking his record on job creation and the soaring levels of public debt. He shrugged off his reputation as cold hearted and robotic with a pitch full of patriotism and compassion for America and its people. He comfortably held his own in a lengthy and detailed joust over the direction of the economy and taxation; it certainly wasn’t as entertaining as the Republican Primaries but it was a whole lot more relevant. Even the most fanatic of Obama fans couldn’t claim a win here and with round one gone Romney had revived his campaign with a crucial and decisive victory over the President.

The race tightened as Obama faced serious pressure to deliver something more substantial. Round two was a bloodier and more evenly contested affair. Both frequently resorted to petty attacks, ambiguous accusations and denials for the purpose of cheap point scoring. While discussing gender equality in the work force Romney said he went to women’s groups to try and resolve the problem of a lack of female applicants and they gave him “binders full of women”.

I’m not sure he wants to associate himself too closely with the kind of people who keep such things (serial killers?), but it provided a rare moment of humour within the 90 minutes.  Most polls narrowly handed Obama the victory, although nowhere near as conclusively as Romney had won the first stand-off.

The final debate shifted the agenda from domestic to foreign policy. Encouraged by his more aggressive stance in round two, Obama shot out the traps with continuous attacks levelled at his opponent. His best was his rebuttal to Romney’s criticism of the US having fewer battleships now than in 1916: “well Governor we also have less horses and bayonets”.

In something of a turnaround from the opening night it was Romney taking up the more submissive position. In broad terms they agreed on many issues, leaving little manoeuvre room to distinguish the candidates. Obama’s record on foreign policy, however, is one regarded very differently to his domestic one.

While most in the US see him as something of a serious let down on the economy, they are far more approving of his diplomacy around the globe and handling of terrorism.

Again the majority of polls and news sources handed the victory to President Obama. Romney however has by and large held his own against his opponent and scored an impressive first round victory. The voters definitely trust him more on the economy, although he still has yet to fully convince them on other important issues. The race is on.

Dom Madar

'Women's issues' – do they really only affect women?

Picture credits Mikkel Elbech

The US election is increasingly being divided along gender lines with so-called “women’s issues” being the most hotly contested area of debate. There have been more campaign adverts on abortion and contraception than on any other issue. However, the fact that these issues – contraception, abortion, equal pay, healthcare and childcare – are being defined as “women’s issues” in the first place is indicative of politicians’ attitudes towards women’s rights. Whilst Obama has made it clear that he does not define these issues as ones only of concern to women, making the important point that contraception and access to abortion impacts dramatically upon men too, Romney approaches the topic from an entirely different viewpoint.

Indeed even ignoring Romney’s “binders of women” blunder in the second Presidential debate, his track record on women’s rights is murky. Although he’s claimed that he’s actively sought out women to employ at senior level positions whilst he was Governor of Massachusetts, the facts reveal a different picture. Whilst 42 per cent of appointments to senior level positions were to women at the start of Romney’s term, by the end of it only 25 per cent were, suggesting he’s not as equal an employer as he’d like to make out. As the election has drawn closer his views on abortion and contraception have softened, from describing himself as totally “pro-life” to his current viewpoint being pro-life, except in the cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life and health is at risk. This is nothing compared to his running mate Paul Ryan who was a co-sponsor of a bill called “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, a radical bill which stated that only “victims of forcible rape would qualify for federally funded abortions”.

This softening approach is also applied to Romney’s stance on contraception with him arguing in the debate that it is not up to government to decide if a woman should use contraception or not. This seemingly contradicts his plans to remove all state funding for ‘Planned Parenthood’, which provides contraception services throughout the United States and currently receives 40 per cent of its funding from the government.

However, the amount of time spent discussing “women’s issues” in this election shows just how much both camps want their votes. Romney’s efforts to disguise his true attitudes towards women indicates the same thing. The money and time spent campaigning over these issues highlights their importance to the American population and the influence they have over a person’s vote. This is an election largely being fought over issues which should, arguably, be private. It is an election where campaigning and advertising has taken place over decisions which should only ever really be made by an individual or two people. Whatever the outcome of this election, in terms of “women’s issues” it has been a landmark one, with women’s rights to their own bodies being debated in a way they haven’t for years.

It also, perhaps, marks the dawn of a new era in American politics, where the personal has become the political in a way many thought it never would again.

Caitlin Edwards

The Latino vote

Picture credits Ricardo Carreon

Has a new silent political force entered the frame? A force powerful enough to change the outcome of the US election?

Over the last thirty years, the Latino population in the United States has almost tripled to over 23 million. By 2050, Latinos are expected to make up one third of the population. This changing demographic can therefore surely be considered a decisive factor in the upcoming US election.

It is believed that some 40 per cent of the Hispanic population are eligible to vote. This small figure is largely due to the numbers who have crossed into the US illegally. Despite this, numerous Democrat supporting Latinos, many of whom are not eligible to vote, have travelled around the states to push for a Democrat victory. Some Republican policies on immigration, such as the idea of “self-deportation”, are unsurprisingly not embraced by the immigrant population.

Romney is, however, mindful of the influence of the Hispanic vote, suggesting that one way undocumented immigrants could gain citizenship would be if they joined the military. Nonetheless despite this, Hispanic voters are more inclined to vote Democrat. Obama’s commitment to remove the threat of deportation of young undocumented immigrants is far more appealing.

Several US states, with high numbers of Hispanic voters, are considered to be critical to the Republican vote. A swing in the states of Florida, Colorado and Nevada could potentially grant Romney a majority.

In 2008 Obama narrowly beat McCain by just over 200,000 in the state of Florida. There are currently 2.1 million eligible Hispanic voters in the state of Florida, which equates to one in six of the Florida electorate. This number is enough to make a huge difference. This figure is one in eight in Colorado, whilst the number of Latino voters in Nevada far exceeds the number by which Obama won in the previous election.

But can the rising Hispanic population shape the US election? In light of the US’ political fragility and challenges it faces economically, Mitt Romney has a huge opportunity to entice those who are discontent with Obama’s handling of the economic crisis.

Perhaps the turning point in the upcoming election will depend on how many of the ever expanding Hispanic electorate will exercise their right to vote.

It is without question, a silent force, with the potential to change the direction of US politics.

Alexander Hunter