A tale of two conventions
In 2012 elections the incumbent president Barack Obama is running for the second term while Mitt Romney is a nominee of the Republic party and a kind of challenger to the former. Both are reputed for upholding commendable family traditions as husbands and fathers. Nevertheless, both hail from different economic, social and ethnic background. The holding of national conventions by both the parties towards the end of the campaigning and canvassing period is the most thrilling, glaring and rigorous tradition of political bouts between the two parties. The underlying objective of these conventions is to nominate and confirm their candidates by these two parties for the top political positions of the President and Vice President. Another vital goal is to give vent to the party’s manifesto for the next four years and to bring party cadres together. The vision and outlook of the two parties in steering the country both internally and in foreign affairs is candidly distinct and as if between two markedly wide and irreconcilable isles of philosophy and outlook. Briefly the Republicans are known to be the representatives of the wealthy classes, the special interest groups and powerful lobbies that are in control of and own the big corporations and businesses. The Democrats speak in favor of the middle and lower classes. The paramount and core issues usually deliberated in these conventions invariably are the state of economy, the jobs, social welfare programs, the American security and the taxation.
The health-care domain in America takes away whopping portion of the national budget every year. The health insurance companies are the backdoor beneficiaries of the huge spending on the health care. If the government would offer free or subsidized health-care to its citizens then that would be at the cost of earnings of the huge private insurance companies run mostly by the most affluent families and individuals in United States.
Romney claims that he is a kind of a maverick manager of economy by virtue of his success in his private business. He denounces Obama for mismanagement of the economy and American forces from abroad, not pressing Iran enough on nuclear issue, and cutting down the defense budget. But as one can figure out from these conventions, he and others Republican luminaries were lacking in the quality and veracity of their speeches and claims. But Romney certainly has an upper edge on Obama in the field of raising funds for the elections. The Republican super duper business magnates are pouring money into Romney’s election funds by millions. Obama and his Democratic Party colleagues have less inflow of funds because their donors are mostly the common Americans, the working classes, low-income groups or individuals. But his rhetorical skills and oratorical finesse stand in good stead for him.
The middle class that stands benefited from his health-care plan and other special benefits seems to be more supportive of him. The recalling of the American troops from both Afghanistan and Iraq has endeared him to the families whose members are serving in the army. His practical measures and decisions to rehabilitate and rescue the forsaken war veterans and those maimed or killed in wars popularize him also among a section of the American society. But what distinguishes him most is his sincerity, sobriety, a dignified posture, a tinge of profound humility, a rancor-free disposition and a constructive and positive attitude. Obama’s inclination and attitude is to bring peace and to craft a role for America as a just and honest arbiter in the international disputes.
—The writer is a senior journalist and a former diplomat.