We will write a custom Essay on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Comparison specifically for you
807 certified writers online
Barack Obama and his followers advocate the idea of universal health coverage. In the opinion of this political leader, the government should find ways of helping those people who cannot afford medical insurance. One of his strategies is to decrease the healthcare costs and invest more capital into medical institutions of the United States (Brock 225).
The combination of these strategies is supposed to increase the availability of healthcare services to American citizens, especially those ones who have no stable source of income. Overall, his major premise is that the great number of uninsured people can be explained by the rising cost of healthcare services. Moreover, this rise can be controlled and slowed down (Brock 225). These policies are based on the premise that the main concern of the government should be social welfare.
Mitt Romney has a very complex attitude toward the initiatives of the Obama administration. On the one hand, he acknowledges the importance of universal coverage (Romney 180). Nevertheless, he believes that governmental intervention can only harm medical institutions (Romney 180). The thing is that such requirements may not be feasible, and hospitals may not be able to cut down their expenses.
Moreover, many nurses may be willing to quit their jobs provided their salaries are not raised. Nevertheless, Mitt Romney does not say that the government should pay no attention to the work of the healthcare system. For instance, this political leader believes that the government should pay for the healthcare services received by older people. These are the main aspects of Mitt Romney’s possible policies regarding the healthcare system.
Barack Obama can be viewed as a supporter of the free-market; nevertheless, his economic policies demonstrate that this politician attaches importance to the role of government. This is why his administration supported the idea of governmental bailouts. For example, one can mention that the government guaranteed the loans American car-manufacturers.
Furthermore, he advocates the necessity to change the taxation policy of the United States. In particular, he thinks that the government should increase the taxes for the wealthiest parts of the American population (Vasavada 15). Furthermore, he lays stress on the protection of home-owners who should have the opportunity to pay off their mortgages. These are the strategies that are supposed to overcome the crisis. Thus, Obama pays close attention to social aspects of economic policies and the role that the government should play in order to promote the wellbeing of the citizens.
Mitt Romney has different views on economic strategies that the United States should adopt. First of all, he believes that the American government should not bailout struggling American companies. Instead, he advocates the idea of their managed bankruptcy (Romney 180). He believes that by purchasing the shares of these companies, the government will not be able to improve their efficiency (Romney 180).
Furthermore, this politician opposes the plans to reduce tax cuts for businesses. In his view, such a policy will only increase the deficit of the country and increase the national debt of the United States. Moreover, such an approach does not guarantee job creation and improvement of people’s purchasing power. Thus, Mitt Romney holds more conservative views on the economic policies of the state and he gives preference to laisser-faire economic policy which is based on the idea that the government should minimize its influence on private businesses.
The war on terror
It should first be noted that Barack Obama avoids using the phrase like “war on terror” in his rhetoric. Instead, he prefers the expression, “the struggle against terrorism” (Obama as cited in Hodges 159). This means that the government does not intend to use only military force when fighting terrorism (Hodges 159). For example, the state can use economic pressure against the countries that are tolerant of terrorist organizations. Thus, Obama departed from the strategies of his predecessor George Bush.
Nevertheless, one should not suppose that the Obama administration could not resort to military force. The assassination of Osama bin Laden suggests that the government did not completely abandon the struggle against the terrorists who had threatened the national security of the United States. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind Barack Obama does not regard this issue as one of his top-most priorities since he is more concerned with domestic problems.
In turn, Mitt Romney acknowledges the importance of the war on terror. This is one of the reasons why he supports the existence of Guantanamo Camp (McCoy 122).
Moreover, this politician actively supports the use of torture or “enhanced interrogation techniques” (Romney as cited in McCoy 122). In his opinion, the prisoners accused of terrorism should not have access to legal services that are available to every American citizen (McCoy 122). This is why the Guantanamo camp should not be closed. Overall, he believes that the government should be able to use force when it is the only way to protect the lives of innocent people. These are the main attitudes of this politician.
The foreign policies of Barack Obama and his cabinet are based on several principles. First of all, this doctrine lays stress on the necessity of cooperation and negotiation between countries in their effort to resolve international problems. His administration strived to reestablish relations with countries that were formerly the opponents of the United States.
For instance, one can mention such as agreement as New START signed with Russia in 2010 (Pifer and O’Hanlon 57). Thus, one can say that this approach favors multilateral natural of international relations. Furthermore, the American government attempted to avoid the use of military service when dealing with countries that may be hostile to the United States.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
For example, American diplomats entered into negotiations with Iran in order to prevent them from developing their nuclear program. Nevertheless, one should not assume that the Obama administration did not completely depart from the policies of the previous cabinet. In particular, the war against terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda remained a priority for the government.
In contrast, Mitt Romney believes that the United States should become a global arbiter in international relations. In his opinion, the American government should not enter into negotiations with autocratic regimes such as Iran, Cuba, or North Korea (Wittes 157). From his perspective, such appeasement of totalitarian states is not likely to stabilize international relations (Wittes 157). Thus, he does not support the policies of the Obama administration and its emphasis on negotiations with such regimes.
Furthermore, he insists that the United States should establish reevaluate its relations with China; in particular, he pays special attention to current trade relations with China since, in his opinion, these relations are not fair. Moreover, he believes that the United States should deter Russian military and economic growth. Overall, Mitt Romney’s views on foreign policies are based on the idea of American exceptionalism. In other words, it means that the country should be a role model for other states.
The comparison of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney shows that voters should always be able to make an informed decision when electing political leaders of the country. I am more likely to support Barack Obama, even though I do not always agree with his decisions. I believe that Obama is right in pointing out that the United States should pay more attention to domestic policies and problems, rather than international relations of the country.
The government should focus on healthcare issues, the development of infrastructure, or education, rather than its relations with countries like China, India, or Russia. Certainly, the internal policies of the Obama administration can be questioned, but they are at least aimed to resolve the domestic problems in the United States.
In contrast, Mitt Romney believes that America should take a more active part in international relations and increase military spending. I do believe that national security should be one of the major concerns for the government; yet, now the United States has the largest military budget. In my view, a further increase in the military budget is hardly justifiable. This is why I cannot agree with Mitt Romney’s views on foreign policies. Furthermore, he advocates the idea that the government should not intervene in the economic life of the country. However, the economic crisis that broke out in 2007 can be partly explained by a lack of regulations.
Overall, I can say that a voter should always be able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of every candidate. I am quite certain that American people can provide numerous examples in favor or against each of the candidates. Overall, I believe that Barack Obama can better contribute to the sustainability of the United States.
Brock, Henry. American Gridlock: Why the Right and Left Are Both Wrong – Commonsense 101 Solutions to the Economic Crises, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print.
Hodges, Adam. The “War on Terror” Narrative:Discourse and Intertextuality in the Construction and Contestation of Sociopolitical Reality: Discourse and Intertextuality in the Construction and Contestation of Sociopolitical Reality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
McCoy, Alfred. Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation, New York: University of Wisconsin Pres, 2012. Print.
Pifer, Steven and M. O’Hanlon. Why Nuclear Arms Control Is Still Important, New York: Brookings Institution Press, 2012. Print.
Romney, Mitt. No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Washington: St. Martin’s Press, 2010. Print.
Vasavada, Nancy. Taxation of US Investment Partnerships and Hedge Funds: Accounting Policies, Tax Allocations and Performance Presentation, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.
Wittes, Benjamin. Campaign 2012: Twelve Independent Ideas for Improving American Public Policy, New York: Brookings Institution Press, 2012. Print.