Higher turnout in 2012 is not a surprise - it was obvious

To the relief of every country in the world minus China, Barack Obama has won re-election in a tight race with Mitt Romney. 

I say tight; it certainly seemed tight going into election day but when push came to shove, it was Obama who cleaned up and won 303 electoral college votes (possibly 332 if Florida goes his way) in comparison to Romney's 206.

Obama's victory is being attributed to his "coalition" of young voters, women, Latinos and other ethnic minorities. There was a lot of noise made in the run-up to this election about whether this "coalition" would support Obama as heavily as they did in 2008, when there was a wave of euphoria around him.

There is a consensus that the "Obama-lition" not only turned out for their candidate in 2012, but they surpassed the numbers in 2008 and recorded all-time high turnouts in key districts. Some are surprised by this: the euphoria turned into disillusionment as their agent for change struggled to make his mark, battling a worldwide economic downturn, a shitstorm in the Middle East and Republicans on the Hill. Obama was never going to heal the planet and calm the oceans; he was never going to change things in just four years, instead his job was to steady the ship and that he did. But that argument did not resonate with the voting public and Mitt Romney set the stage for what he hailed as a critical point in American history.   

So to understand the "surprisingly high" turnout this year, you must understand the narratives that surrounded both 2008 and 2012. 2008 was "Obama-mania" coated in hope and change and the idea of a fresh start on greener pastures. It got the "Obama-lition" ready to go and fired up and he strolled into the White House. 

But 2012 is a different time. Unemployment is at record highs (Obama won with the highest unemployment rate since FDR), people are struggling to make ends meet and America is seemingly losing its aura as the world's economic superpower to China. Republicans were scared and convinced they needed "real change", a promise that Mitt Romney made. For the Democrats, the gross incompetence and flip-flopping of Romney perhaps scared them more the economy, so they felt the need to "get Obama's back" and give him a second term. That left us with two energised bases who believed their decision would change the course of history. They had to vote, they just had to because the race was painted as such a significant one. 

And it was. Obama has his second term and his role as President is different. The ship is steadied and his attention now turns to change. Obama will use the next four years to build his legacy and establish his vision for America.  

Sara Malm and the need to say why

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" has never been more relevant for a Miss Sara Malm. Her opinion piece on the Indy has been ruthlessly torn to shreds by an angry readership, who see her view on teacher strikes as "ignorant", "nasty" and "delusional" among other adjectives. 

First of all, a note to some readers. I quoted Voltaire in the intro to this post, because it sums up the hate-storm that Malm has weathered in the past few days. It is fair to disagree with her opinions but plainly insulting her, labelling as a "twit", "idiot" and "imbecile" is stupid. Some argue that Malm needs to understand her history, to understand that workers unions are a product of an effective democracy but guess what else is? Pluralism. 

A diversity of views informs debate and strengthens democracy, by saying "this is how I feel, but others disagree and this is why". By all means, it is your right to disagree with Malm. I disagree too, for reasons that will likely be a follow-up to this post in the next few days. But for some readers to ignore the issues in favour of hateful responses, even going so far as to find her blog and trash it, is not how democracy should be. People fought in blood and sweat for the right to strike, to exercise their power to give us a clean, safe environment in which to work. However it was our ancestors who fought for the freedom of speech. It was those people who gave Malm the opportunity to speak, and for the readers to insult the course she studies, as well as the people on that course (which, by the way, would include me).

I will finish this by saying that not all of the commentators on Malm's piece are the subject of this post. Some offered factual, insightful opinion, grounded in logic that act as an effective counter to Malm's views. Some people even agreed with her, commending her opinion and the way in which she articulated it. But their voices have been drowned out by those who rush in to call her "the new Samantha Brick" and then leave again without saying why. Just say why and then we can take it from there.