- Some regard the economy as Obama’s weak point. However, his hands have been tied. The global finances have been drastic during his presidency, and so he has done the best with a bad situation; he has still presided over economic growth whilst securing and sustaining investment in education, infrastructure, energy research, health, and other programmes.
- His tax proposals are fair. He has cut taxes for many and would slightly increase the taxes on millionaires and repeal Bush-era tax cuts for households making more than $250,000 a year. Rich households in America would still pay a hefty percentage of their money in tax, but for the short term, it may be exactly what is needed.
- His foreign policy is a lot more measured, logical and less extreme than Romney’s. He is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but favours a more diplomatic, calm approach; that that would prevent any hostile, aggressive consequences. He also understands the rising power of developing nations, signing trade agreements with countries like Colombia and South Korea.
- National security is a lot more, well, secure with Obama than with someone like Romney (need I tell you some of the idiotic things he has said and done in the past?). A lot of people have forgotten that Bin Laden, and many of al-Qaeda’s leadership, have by killed under Obama’s administration, and he does so without ‘banging the war drums’ or provoking other nations.
- Obamacare cares for the poorest in society in this time of economic hardship. Now, everyone in the US is required to have healthcare insurance and the poorest are offered state grants to increase their enrolment in Medicaid. Romney would repeal this, leaving many without the means to care for themselves.
- Obama supports abortion rights. It seems preposterous that someone in the twenty-first century believes that the state has power over a woman’s (or anyone’s, for the matter) own body. Romney would take away any control a woman has over such matters; a fundamental right in today’s day and age.
- In terms of energy, Obama has a plan for the short-term that does not disregard the future. He supports clean energy such as wind turbines and advanced car batteries. He has argued that the US had not had sufficient time to judge its environmental impact, and supports a more sustainable future, as opposed to Romney’s reckless, short-term plans.
- He has reduced America’s role as the ‘global police’, which it cannot sustain financially and has moral repercussions. American troops have begun to withdraw out of Afghanistan, and military operations have now ended in Iraq.
- All in all, Obama is the better option. He has been restricted by global factors, meaning he has not been able to deliver all of his ‘change[s] we can believe in’, but Romney is a much more reckless, illogical decision that is loaded with risk. At risk of sounding like a scare-monger, these risks include nothing less than overtly right-wing policies destroying the American working class and reckless, naïve ideology breaking international bonds and causing global conflict.
Just in case saying ‘Romney’s an idiot’ isn’t a good enough reason.