Among those responsible for Mitt Romney’s loss, according to the WSJ, include Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, two Republican nominees who the board argues gave Obama crucial boosts with the healthcare ruling and quantitative easing, respectively. Romney also gets a fair share of the blame, primarily for his embrace of far-right immigration policies.
The real culprits, however, are the voters who chose “hope over experience”:
Mr. Obama’s campaign stitched together a shrunken but still decisive version of his 2008 coalition—single women, the young and culturally liberal, government and other unions workers, and especially minority voters.
He said little during the campaign about his first term and even less about his plans for a second. Instead his strategy was to portray Mitt Romney as a plutocrat and intolerant threat to each of those voting blocs. No contraception for women. No green cards for immigrants. A return to Jim Crow via voter ID laws. No Pell grants for college.
But the paper’s editorial board is cheered by the fact that U.S. politics are impermanent:
Some of our conservative friends will argue that Mr. Obama’s victory thus represents a decline in national virtue and a tipping point in favour of the “takers” over the makers. They will say the middle class chose Mr. Obama’s government blandishments over Mr. Romney’s opportunity society. We don’t think such a narrow victory of an incumbent President who continues to be personally admired justifies such a conclusion.
Perhaps this fear will be realised over time, but such a fate continues to be in our hands. There are few permanent victories or defeats in American politics, and Tuesday wasn’t one of them. The battle for liberty begins anew this morning.
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.