EAI Commentary No. 13: Voters Inform Obama of Separation After Forgetting His Marriage Vows

Professor Son Byong-kwon is currently a professor in the Department of International Relations at Chung-Ang University.

President Obama, who stirred a political whirlwind in 2008 by calling for national unity and change in Washington politics, was able to win the election not only due to the American public's fatigue with the aftermath of the Iraq War but also by benefiting from the economic crisis triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis. The reason why Obama, the Democratic candidate, was able to win an election that could have been lost due to the surge of Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, was that voters, holding the Bush administration responsible for the downturn of the U.S. economy, overwhelmingly cast their votes for him with expectations of economic recovery. Thus, the pledge between candidate Obama and the voters in 2008 was none other than economic recovery.

However, as these voter expectations for economic recovery were frustrated, Obama's Democratic Party suffered a devastating defeat in the midterm elections held two years after his inauguration in 2010. Regardless of the Democratic leadership's intention to frame the midterm elections as a choice between 'a return to the Bush administration's economic policies' and 'providing momentum for the Obama administration's forward-looking policy initiatives,' voters viewed this election as an opportunity to pass judgment on the Obama administration. Consequently, the Democratic Party lost the House of Representatives to the Republican Party just four years after regaining control of both chambers in the 2006 midterm elections after a 12-year hiatus, and narrowly retained its majority status in the Senate. The Republican Party surged to become the majority party in the House, gaining more than 60 seats in addition to its existing 178 seats, and achieved a comfortable victory in the Senate, securing about 5 additional seats to its existing 41. The more than 60 seats lost by the Democratic Party in the House this time are a remarkable number, surpassing the 55 and 52 seats lost by the Democratic Party, which was the majority party in Congress and belonged to the President's party, in the 1946 and 1994 midterm elections, respectively.

The domestic and international achievements of the Obama administration over the past two years, including economic stimulus, healthcare reform, financial reform, and the enhancement of America's international image, failed to resonate with voters due to the sluggish economic recovery. In a situation where the U.S. economy could not escape the quagmire of recession, as evidenced by the unemployment rate hovering around 9.5 percent, the federal debt exceeding $13 trillion and significantly surpassing 80 percent of GDP, and the federal budget deficit reaching 10 percent of GDP, the passage of the healthcare reform bill was perceived by many voters merely as an additional burden that would increase their tax burden and exacerbate the federal deficit. Ultimately, the voters' expression of dissatisfaction with President Obama, who failed to keep his pledge of economic recovery, manifested in the Republican Party's control of Congress, and the separation between the Obama administration and the voters is expected to continue for the time being.

The Democratic Party's defeat stemmed from the decisive factor of economic recession, technically augmented by increased voter turnout among anti-Obama supporters and decreased turnout among voters who supported Obama in 2008. It is widely known that the turnout of Republican supporters increased due to the nationwide spread of the conservative grassroots movement known as the Tea Party, primarily composed of white individuals, amid growing concerns about the persistent economic recession and excessive expansion of the federal government. In fact, various opinion polls conducted before the election showed that the gap in support rates between the two parties was not significant at the registered voter level; however, among likely voters, the proportion of Republican supporters exceeded that of Democratic supporters by as much as 10 percent. In other words, this election appears to have been one where the will of Republican voters to punish the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress was strongly highlighted.

On the other hand, the voter turnout among young voters and Hispanic voters who were enthusiastic about Obama in the 2008 presidential election appears to have been relatively low. According to exit polls conducted by media organizations, despite a decrease in support rates compared to 2008, young voters and Hispanic voters, including first-time voters, still overwhelmingly tended to support the Democratic Party. However, the increase in unemployment and the sluggish progress of immigration reform became major reasons why these two voter blocs did not actively participate in voting in this election. With the lukewarm voter turnout of Obama supporters, and conversely, the active participation of conservative voters, including Tea Party supporters, the Republican Party achieved an overwhelming victory.

Given these election results, what we should focus on is whether President Obama can be re-elected two years later, and what impact these election results will have on pending issues in Korea-U.S. relations, such as the ratification of the Korea-U.S. FTA, and the situation in Northeast Asia. As can be easily predicted, the next two years will clearly be a period of great trial for President Obama. Even before the election, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of the Republican Party stated that the Republican Party's primary goal after the election would be to make President Obama a "one-term president." If this intention of the Republican leadership is realized, U.S. politics for the next two years will undoubtedly be characterized by partisan conflict between the Republican Party, advocating "anything but Obama," and the Democratic Party, seeking a comeback. As if to prove this, in a press conference held after the Republican Party's landslide victory was confirmed, the Republican Party consistently responded "no compromise" to President Obama's proposal to find "common ground" and seek cooperation. Therefore, it will be very difficult for President Obama to achieve legislative accomplishments that reflect his will through congressional politics to present in 2012.

It is questionable whether President Obama's pursuit of an extremely painful and perhaps humiliating Republican courtship strategy, deviating from his existing populist appeal strategy based on eloquent rhetoric, will be favorably received by the Republican Party. The gap between the proposal to seek "common ground" and the response of "no compromise" still appears wide. When the Obama administration presents concrete proposals regarding the reduction of the fiscal deficit, the most serious problem facing the United States, it remains to be seen whether the Republican Party, which views this issue as the most urgent problem but is unwilling to compromise with the White House, will respond with an open and cooperative attitude.

With the Obama administration also pledging to extend the Bush tax cuts except for high-income earners, it is very difficult to expect a balanced budget recovery without exceptional tax reform or drastic spending cuts. Furthermore, with the 2012 presidential election just two years away, it is difficult for the Democratic administration to reduce popular social welfare programs and other entitlement programs. Given that the Republican Party will clearly oppose any form of new taxation, introducing new taxes is also difficult. In addition, the war in Afghanistan will continue to incur expenses, and additional spending will be unavoidable in relation to the healthcare reform law, making it difficult to find a solution to the fiscal deficit problem. Beyond exceptional measures that are politically very painful, such as introducing new forms of taxation or drastically cutting social welfare programs—in other words, policies that would inevitably lead to a decline in support for incumbent politicians in the 2012 presidential election—it is unclear what other deficit reduction measures exist. If deficit reduction policies are not actively pursued, and U.S. debt increases 악성적으로 (maliciously) and international credibility in the dollar wavers, the resulting distrust in the U.S. financial standing could become a cause for concern not only in the United States but globally. For President Obama, who faces the task of resolving these challenges, the Republican Party, which, despite viewing the fiscal deficit as the biggest problem, is unwilling to follow Obama's lead, is bound to be a very difficult opponent.

Considering these difficult circumstances, how can we forecast Obama's re-election prospects in the presidential election in 2012, two years from now? While it is dangerous to make assumptions based solely on the results of this midterm election, my judgment is that it is not entirely pessimistic. There are several reasons for this, in addition to the conventional wisdom that 'the president's party tends to lose seats in midterm elections.' First, the Republican Party's victory in this election was largely due to the active participation of Republican supporters. In addition, a majority of independent voters showed anti-Obama sentiments, leading to a Republican landslide. Anger over economic hardship strongly motivated Republican voters to turn out, while Democratic voters were lukewarm. Therefore, if the Democratic Party can mobilize its supporters in the 2012 election as it did in the 2008 presidential election, the election results could be significantly different from this election.

Second, it is worth noting that the Tea Party movement, while potentially a source of support for the Republican Party in the future, could also become a factor that triggers a civil war within the Republican Party. This tendency was indeed frequently observed during the Republican primaries in this midterm election. As the competition intensified between candidates supported by Tea Party supporters and the established Republican candidates, intra-party conflicts occurred in a significant number of districts, and these are unlikely to be easily resolved even after the primaries. Although it is a remote possibility, if such internal conflicts are re-enacted in an extreme form during the 2012 Republican presidential primary process, a Tea Party candidate or an established Republican candidate could emerge as a third-party candidate, which would benefit President Obama. In fact, it is worth recalling that in 1992, candidate Clinton of the Democratic Party benefited from the emergence of Ross Perot as a third-party candidate and was elected president.

Third, the Republican Party's future uncompromising stance could potentially benefit the Democratic Party. Now that the Republican Party has become the majority party in the House and thus a partner in governing under a divided government, if it maintains an uncompromising attitude and continuously rejects requests for cooperation from the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in the Senate, public criticism for policy failures could increasingly be directed at the Republican Party. It is worth recalling the case in 1994 when the Republican Party, as the majority party in Congress at the time, constantly clashed with the Clinton administration, intentionally obstructing and delaying the passage of the federal budget, which resulted in the unprecedented event of a 'government shutdown' and drew intense public criticism. Furthermore, there is a sufficient possibility that independent voters in the center may turn away from the uncompromising far-right Republican Party and give President Obama another chance.

Finally, it is necessary to examine the implications and ripple effects of this midterm election result on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. First, regarding the North Korean issue, it is highly likely that the United States will continue its existing passive engagement policy centered on the Six-Party Talks in cooperation with South Korea, rather than actively engaging in dialogue with North Korea. This is not only because the possibility is further increased by the Republican Party's gains in Congress, but more so because of the Obama administration's pledge not to resume dialogue with North Korea unilaterally, disregarding the intentions of the South Korean government. Therefore, the direction of North Korea policy concerning the nuclear issue is largely considered to depend on the decisions of the Lee Myung-bak administration. However, compared to the South Korean government, the Obama administration is considered to be prepared to return to the pre-Cheonan incident (March 26) mindset regarding the North Korean issue.

Considering that the U.S. Congress has traditionally exerted stronger influence on intermestic issues (issues with both domestic and international implications) than on security issues, the 112th Congress, which will be dominated by the pro-business Republican Party, will create a more favorable environment for the ratification of the Korea-U.S. FTA than the 111th Congress, which was dominated by the Democratic Party. However, the actual success of ratification is still not a simple matter. This is primarily because current U.S. public opinion is divided between arguments for and against free trade. First, President Obama, who sought to secure votes from labor unions, a core constituency of the Democratic Party, by consistently advocating for increased market access for Korean automobiles during the 2008 presidential election, is not particularly favorable towards the expansion of free trade that does not contribute to job creation in the U.S. Furthermore, while there is an argument that free trade increases exports and helps create jobs, there is also a strong counterargument that in the current deteriorating economic situation, it will lead to the outsourcing of American jobs. Nevertheless, the first year of the first half of the 112th Congress is a more favorable period than ever for the passage of the Korea-U.S. FTA, and if the U.S. Congress wishes for the swift passage of the FTA, the Lee Myung-bak administration must strive to pass it within this period through a give-and-take approach. In particular, it should be remembered that the Obama administration is paying attention to the July 2011 entry into force of the EU-Korea FTA, cannot ignore the alliance and security aspects of the Korea-U.S. FTA, and is considering the international credibility of the Trans-Pacific Partnership led by the U.S. in the future. Therefore, it is highly likely that they will seek to finalize this issue by the first half of next year, before entering the 2012 presidential election mode.

Meanwhile, examining the impact of this midterm election on the conflict between the U.S. and China that has emerged since the Cheonan incident on March 26, it is anticipated that the U.S.'s "beating up on China" will continue until 2012, unless China responds with remarkable global rebalancing policies, such as revaluing the Yuan, in relation to economic issues and job creation, which were key topics of this election. The persistent criticism by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California against Carly Fiorina, a Republican challenger and former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, as a primary culprit for outsourcing American jobs to China during the election campaign is highly symbolic. In particular, the U.S. must announce its plan to inject $600 billion into economic stimulus immediately after the midterm elections on November 3, despite the expected backlash from countries worldwide, as it is in a "unique and desperate situation." Therefore, U.S. pressure on China to stimulate domestic demand and open its export markets is expected to continue, and there is likely to be little difference in stance between Congress and the administration on this issue.

In conclusion, the 2010 midterm elections were centered on economic recovery and job creation, and impatient U.S. voters informed the Obama administration of a separation after just two years due to frustrated expectations. It is not necessarily necessary to view President Obama's re-election prospects in 2012 pessimistically based solely on the results of the 2010 midterm elections. However, despite plausible reversal scenarios, if tangible economic recovery and a reduction in unemployment do not accompany them, the Democratic Party and the Obama administration will inevitably face angry voters two years later. Therefore, the Obama administration is expected to focus all its efforts on domestic economic recovery over the next two years, but it remains uncertain how cooperative the Republican Party, which aims to make him a one-term president, will be with Obama's economic recovery efforts. The Democratic Party's deep concern lies in the fact that whether the temporary two-year separation between President Obama and U.S. voters will lead to an eternal breakup does not solely depend on a change in Obama's leadership. Meanwhile, the impact of this midterm election on Northeast Asia is not expected to be significant. U.S. policy toward North Korea will continue to be a 'passive engagement policy,' and the U.S.'s 'beating up on China' will continue until 2012. However, the advance of the pro-business Republican Party is expected to create a more favorable environment for the ratification of the Korea-U.S. FTA. ■

The East Asia Institute (EAI) has been selected as a core research institution for the MacArthur Foundation's 'Asia Security Initiative' program and is receiving financial support. [EAI Commentary] aims to provide in-depth analysis and practical alternatives through a balanced perspective on major domestic and international issues. When quoting [EAI Commentary], please be sure to cite the source. This manuscript represents the personal opinions of the author and does not reflect the official position of the East Asia Institute.