Obama won. So what does it mean for the US? I will limit myself to three aspects: foreign policy, domestic economic policies and the re-regulation of finance.
In terms of foreign policy, Obama's confirmation avoids the risks of a Romney who is probably more isolationist and less suited to managing the complex global balances. Regarding the areas of attention, reflecting the new geopolitical arrangements that are emerging, the Obama I administration had already shifted the focus from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Regardless of the lively pre-election disputes, which should as usual return after the vote, the US under Obama II could continue a policy of appeasement with China but, at the same time, strengthening their position in East and South Asia East and in Oceania in order to contain the expansion of Chinese influence.
In the Middle East-North Africa, an unstable area due to the various regime transitions and national crises, the risk that excessive flattening by Romney on possible extremist positions of Israel could lead to destabilizing actions against Iran should be averted. In terms of attention to Europe, today dulled by its own crisis, Obama's victory in any case means less indifference than could be foreseen for his rival. Mind you, we'll have to solve the European problems on our own, but a less distant President should help.
For domestic economic policies, Obama's confirmation means more attention to the less advantaged, in order to mitigate the deep inequalities, both for the maintenance of health insurance and because possible new tax reductions on the wealthier are discarded. Another noteworthy aspect should be the continuation of support for the green economy, which could not have happened under Romney as president, from which benefits could derive not only for sustainability but also for promoting innovation in this high-potential sector.
Perhaps the most pronounced difference, however, is on the third aspect, that of finance. One had the clear impression that Obama I did not push enough to achieve a sufficiently incisive re-regulation, necessary to regain stability and limit the speculative drift of finance. For him, there seemed to be two main qualms. First of all, in his initial mandate he focused heavily on healthcare reform and could not afford to exasperate the financial reform front as well. Furthermore, even if on several occasions – also going to remind Wall Street of the anniversary of the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers – he has shown a propensity to do so, he has not pressed his hand on the tightening of the rules for finance, fearing to have a strong opposition to reappointment. Therefore, freed from both of those restraints, Obama II will be able to do more, which would have been less likely for Romney to do.
This is a central point because the will on the part of the top American leader to overcome the phase of financial capitalism, born overseas, lays the foundations for a strengthening of the global leadership capacity. It would be hard to sleep peacefully if the world were to continue to feel squeezed between the Scylla of unstable Anglo-American financial capitalism and the Charybdis of state capitalism in China and other large emerging countries. If Obama II is able to move the bar from Wall Street to Main Street, not only the average American will gain, but the average citizen of advanced countries.
But there are three caveats. First, Obama's confirmation is not yet certain and, therefore, all of the above could prove to be futile. Furthermore, even in the event of confirmation, it is also necessary to take into account the cohabitation induced by the fact that the majority in Congress will be Republican and therefore Obama II's room for maneuver will be limited. Finally, even Obama II will have to deal with the growing public debt and only a solid economic recovery would allow him to escape the gauntlet.
