Sidi Sanneh: The Gambia 1994 - 2014 : 20 years of pure unadult...

Sidi Sanneh: The Gambia 1994 - 2014 : 20 years of pure unadult...: How Dr Jamus Jammeh looked in July 1994 Tobacco Road, Banjul compounds The A(F)PRC regime of Alhaji Dr. Professor Yaya Jamus Junku... KAYJATTA

A GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH TO THE ECONOMY: CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

A GEOGRAPHICAL APPROACH TO THE ECONOMY: CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS JATTA KEBBA 08/25/13 SUMMARY: This paper is an analysis of the 2005 famine in Niger as well as the financial powerhouse in Wall Street, New York, from an economic geographic perspective as compared to the traditional orthodox economic analysis. It seeks to understand Niger and Wall Street’s unique position in the global (and national) pattern of uneven development, their social structures, and the characteristics and capabilities of their governing institutions. KEY POINTS: 1. Differences between the economist’s and economic geographer’s perspectives on the economy 2. Patterns of uneven development (national, regional, and global) as a necessity of global capitalism 3. Famine as a problem of distribution rather than production 4. Social constructions and representations of poverty and underdevelopment MOST IMPORTANT TERMS AND DEFINITIONS: • Place-refers to the specificity and uniqueness of a particular territory as a result of the interaction of physical features and social processes. • Space-refers to physical distance and area with defined boundaries from other entities. • Scale-refers to the size of the unit in consideration. For example, Niger could be considered at the national, regional or global scale. • Representation-refers to social constructions that describe and create representations of place, space and scale. LINKS: • Masochi to Manhattan versus low wage and high wage earners in the U.S. • Inequality as a product of capitalism • Profiteering versus human worth QUESTIONS: 1. How significant was the 2005 famine to the 2010 military ouster of Niger’s elected President? 2. Niger’s uranium was mentioned in the run up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002. What’s uranium’s contribution to Niger’s economy? 3. Why is so much Wall Street bashing? Is it seen as symbolic of the tyranny of capitalism?

JULY 22: NO REVOLUTION IN THE GAMBIA (Revised). Kayjatta Kansas City INTRODUCTION   Today July 22, 2013 marked 19 years of military rule in the Gambia. In the summer of 1994, disgruntled junior officers of the Gambia National Army (GNA) toppled the democratically elected PPP government of Alhagie Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara that ruled the Gambia for thirty years, since independence from Britain in 1965. Jammeh’s role in that coup still remains unclear despite his repeated claim that he led it. Many Gambians believe that he was selected to leadership only because of his seniority. President Jammeh has since retired from the army after promoting himself to colonel and has transformed his military council (AFPRC) into the ruling APRC political party that has won four consecutive presidential elections widely condemned by independent observers as not free and fair. Despite his civilian façade, President Jammeh continues to rule as a military dictator, assuming enormous national security powers, and in the process destroying all the democratic institutions of the country. The legislature, the judiciary, opposition parties, labor unions, student organizations, the media, business associations, NGOs, religious groups, etc have all been reduced to the ground through various tactics of intimidation – including detentions, torture, and executions of perceived enemies. At the time of the July 22 military coup, the Gambia was enjoying relative peace and stability in a very unstable West African sub-region. The fall of Jawara’s PPP (peoples’ Progressive Party) government was considered “…sad times“for African democracy. At the time of the coup, the Gambia was considered to have the “longest functioning democracy in Africa”. The coup of July 1994 in the Gambia was part of a larger trend in Africa since January 1963 when soldiers brought down the elected government of Silvanus Olympio in Togo. This military intervention in Togo was quickly followed by Congo (DRC) and Benin in August and October respectively, when civilian governments in both countries were toppled. Many other African countries experienced military interventions, some repeatedly since then. Nigerian (January 1966, July 1966, 1975, 1976, 1983, 1985, 1990 and 1993). Ghana (1975, 1978, and 1979).  Gabon (1964), Angola (1977), Kenya (1982), Mali (1968, 1991, and 2012), Sierra Leone (1968, 1992, 1996, and 1997) Liberia (1980, 1989), Senegal (1962), Gambia (1981, 1994), Uganda (1971, 1986). The military have either toppled or attempted to topple governments in other countries including Ethiopia, Somalia, Egypt, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau and Guinea Conakry. Jammeh came to power against this backdrop. The civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone were  still raging; and political sentiments about the military regimes of Valentine Strasser (Sierra Leone), General Sani Abacha (Nigeria), Ft. Lt. JJ Rawlings Ghana), and Col. Qaddaffi (Libya) were still fever high. However, this was also a time when military coups have been tapering off in African and around the world for some time. Many military regimes have or are beginning to return to democracy; hence the so-called "third wave democratization' in Africa. Therefore, the coup of 1994 in the Gambia could be considered a setback to the 'third wave democratization' in Africa. JULY 1994 REVOLUTION, OR IS IT? The aftermath of the military takeover of 1994 is still very controversial.  Jammeh’s ardent supporters often refer to it as “The Revolution”, while many other Gambians consider it to have fallen far short of its revolutionary promise. There is a huge gulf between ‘pretention and reality’. The AFPRC/APRC government, despite its rhetoric and lofty development ambition, barely qualify as a reformist regime much more a revolutionary one. It has to be admitted however, that Jammeh; considering his socio-economic background, could have been the ideal voice and hope for the struggling masses of Gambians. Part of the explanation for the initial support for the coup is that many Gambians were able to identify with him after decades of PPP squander and arrogance. But since coming to power, despite its rhetoric, the AFPRC/APRC has no radical economic or cultural vision. ‘July 22’, for nineteen years now, has not gotten rid of old ideas and structures in favor of new economic and social relationships. Vision 2020, the government's blueprint for socio-economic change has failed. Both economic and political power remains concentrated in the hands of a few army officers and their civilian cronies in the private sector. The masses of Gambians remain even poorer than they were under the civilian government that was toppled on July 22, 1994. There is no political education or actual re-orientation of the masses, partly because the coup makers on July 22 have no political education themselves. There is also no ideological underpinning to differentiate AFPRC/APRC from the civilian government of Jawara’s PPP. Instead of mass political education and re-orientation, decentralizing power into the hands of the people, and increased economic efficiency; widespread abuse of power and corruption continues to be the order of the day. Therefore, Jammeh is not even a “reluctant revolutionary” as in the case of Saikou Toure (Guinea Conakry) - his latest idol. And certainly there were no “Arusha Declaration” as in the case of Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. Through his poor governance and human rights violations, President Jammeh has alienated Gambia’s development partners around the world. Jammeh himself has not been officially welcomed in Europe or the United States-Gambia's traditional allies- for almost all of his entire two decades in office. The European Union further suspended much needed development funds to the Gambia following the recent standoff over the Jammeh-regime’s human rights obligations under the ‘Cotonou Agreement’. Fear and uncertainty continues to grip the nation. Creativity and self-expression are stifled. As a result, economic development (which goes hand-in-hand with good governance) remains an illusion. Also Jammeh’s “Back to the Land” call (a central tenet of ‘The Revolution’) which takes away productive land from the ordinary people and give them to the rich few is not helping his alleged revolutionary standing. The “Back to the Land” call by the APRC is no semblance to the “Green Revolution” of the Indian Punjab. CONCLUSION: A revolution, in order to succeed, must radically transform the economic, social, cultural, and political existence of a given people. The military regime of Yahya Jammeh, for nearly two decades from July 22, 1994 to July 22, 2013 has not succeeded, as it promised, in seriously transforming the Gambian economic and social structures in any profound way. Poverty and inequality remains high and continues to increase. Jammeh’s rule continues to be remembered for its human rights abuses more than anything else. And the socio-economic condition of Gambians is worse than ever. Therefore, the call for another struggle for independence still remains valid in the Gambia. This is well captured in the words of Alexander Hamilton (a United States founding father): "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit...".

Alioune Mbaye NDER - Aladji

KAYJATTA
An evening with Mbai Nderr. I particularly like the soft melody of this piece, led by the guitars and the keyboard. And you can hear the supporting percussions (a crucial element of Senegambian music) in those sputtering melancholic notes in the background. Great instrumentation and very relaxing !

IS MORALITY RELATIVE?

KEBBA JATTA

The question of morality touches on the broader question of ethics. In this paper, I will examine moral relativity within that broad context of ethics but often referring to justice as an example of a moral act. I will argue in favor of moral relativism, relying mainly on Aristotle’s moral theory as oppose to Emmanuel Kant’s Universalist theory. I use Kant largely because he appears to stand on a similar philosophical ground as Plato. Kant and Plato share a Universalist view of morality. They both believe that morality is absolute for all people at all times. This is perhaps the Newtonian view (after the British physicist, Isaac Newton) of morality as opposed to the Aristotelian moral relatively similar to Einstein’s (Relativity) theory of the universe.

Moral relativity is the philosophical theory that there is no objective standard to measure or judge what is right or wrong. This concept perhaps developed from the ‘social contract theory’ as explained in Plato’s Republic. The ‘social contract theory’ states that human beings are naturally unjust (immoral). Everybody acts on their desires and personal interest somewhat similar to John Locke’s political theory of the ’State of Nature’, which ultimately is bad for everyone in the society. This realization that extreme individual selfish acts ultimately undermine society’s wellbeing then prompts people to agree among themselves not to harm one another. This agreement then becomes the ‘social contract’ that forms the moral code leading to a peaceful, beneficial and a happy society for all, Glaucon stated in the Republic. Therefore, according to moral relativism, what is moral or ethical depends on what is generally accepted by each society. Morality therefore cannot be constant over time and space. In short, there is no such thing as absolute morality.

Critics of moral relativism argue that it makes excuse for horrible acts such as slavery and Nazism for example, which could then be considered by moral relativist as morally right in the past even though it is now considered by the majority of people as wrong. Professor Nam raised this issue in his lecture series by asking “what if the majority of the people come to consider slavery as morally right again in 2052?” These are valid questions that need to be adequately addressed by moral relativists. However, slavery (except chattel capitalistic slavery that existed in the United States and Europe) in some form existed in every society at some point. It is often a response to the prevailing economic conditions and labor relations that sometimes works for both slave and slave owner.

However, the question still remains: why do we act morally? Or to use justice as a specific example, why do we act justly? Before addressing this question, I have to point out that, as Professor Nam stated; this question assumes that morality actually exists? If so, then the question of whether morality is absolute or relative and the motive(s) for it arises. Morality is indeed real, by all indications, and according to Aristotle, it exists in relative terms. That is to say that morality varies from society to society across time and space. Professor McGowan cited the example of the Eskimo culture in his lecture series on YouTube. According McGowan, Eskimo parents kill their young ones especially female ones at their own discretion, and they also freely share their wives with visitors as a show of hospitality. These acts by Western standards are horrible acts, but there appears to be a number of environmental and cultural rationales for these practices by Eskimos. Aristotle argued that people act morally or justly because of their natural desire to do the “highest good” which is to achieve the state of happiness. This, in the Aristotelian sense is a natural urge to fulfill human nature rather than an abstract mysterious purpose that both Plato and Kant suggested. In the painting of the two philosophers (Plato and Aristotle) shown together in Dr. Nam’s lecture, Plato could be seen pointing his finger upwards while Aristotle directed his hand to the ground.  This depiction of the two philosophers, in a subtle way, illustrates their different philosophical stands. While Plato looked upwards to the sky for heavenly reasons why humans act morally or justly, a view shared by Kant; Aristotle looked for earthly reasons within human beings themselves for the motives. It is relevant to note this Aristotelian departure from his teacher, Plato’s transcendentalist motives for morality.

Aristotle viewed happiness as the use of reason and wisdom to perform virtuous acts.  Emmanuel Kant in contrast trusted that instinct more than reason results in actions that produce happiness. Therefore, according to Aristotle, virtue is the criterion for evaluating whether an action is morally good or not. These inward, naturalistic ways of explaining human motives for acting morally are referred to as the “Aristotelian Circle”. It stands in sharp contrast to the supernatural, abstract and mysterious ways of Plato which are now called the “Platonic Forms”. While Plato didn’t elaborate on these transcendental motives, Aristotle went to some length to explain his theory. According to Aristotle, two forces determine whether humans act morally or not. They are “character” and “action”, and both are not absolute but rather they depend on each other. “Character” determines an action to be virtuous. However, “character” is in turn formed by virtuous “acts” (actions). Aristotle believed that this two way interaction between “character” and “action” results in the state of “happiness” (Eudaimonia), which is the ultimate goal of human nature. “Happiness above all else is what we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else”, Aristotle said (Andrew Bailey, 2011).

Critics of Aristotle’s theory points out that his argument could not be right because it runs in circles. They are quick to note that, it is a circular argument to say that “character determines action, and that action in turn determines character” as the “Aristotelian Circle” appears to indicate. For this reason, they argue that we have to accept Plato’s argument in the “Platonic Forms” because it does not have the circular problem that Aristotle’s theory has. My problem with the “Platonic Forms” is that we do not know what it is. Plato did not tell us what these forms are. Plato’s theory therefore may not have a circular problem, but it does have an epistemic one.

Professor McGowan also cited the examples of free speech in the United States versus China, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and the U.S. Founding Fathers as representing moral acts at one point in time and space and at another, representing immoral acts. This illustrates that moral relativism is self-defeating, according to Professor McGowan. However, McGowan warns us to be open-minded because our preferences may not after all be rooted in some absolute rational standards, and cited monogamy in Mormonism as well as modesty of dress and Janet Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction”.

In his “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant also identified ‘character’ as a precedent for moral acts, but unlike Aristotle, he added ‘good will’ as an indispensable constituent of ‘character’. Kant’s ‘good will’ is similar to Plato’s transcendental motives in that he (Kant) views ‘good will’ as the highest good, even worthy of happiness by itself. Kant’s view is problematic with regards to actions that are just and moral, for he believes that the mere act of doing something just and moral does not necessarily result in its moral worth. The ‘good will’ or the inclination to do the just and moral act must be present in order for the action to be morally worthy. This Kantian ‘good will’ is the mental disposition that Kant himself referred to as the “categorical imperative” (Bailey, pg. 659). Therefore an action accompanied by good will has moral worth, and an action not accompanied by good will has no moral worth, according to Kant (Bailey, pg. 650). In his ‘Third Formulation’, Kant urged one to act as if his actions should serve as a universal law of all rational beings (Bailey, pg. 662). But there is no universal law of all rational beings. Besides the physical laws of nature, much of the laws governing human actions are human constructs reflecting human interaction with one another and the environment through time and space. Kant in effect ascribed a fixed reference point for moral behavior, pretty much like Plato did. This is not consistent with human experience.

Human history itself is a testimony to the credibility of moral relativity. Human beings, as evolutionary beings, are in all respects non-static. Human character and action are in a constant flux as variables of time and space. Our changing values on some of today’s hot-button issues such as military conflict, assisted suicide, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc are very instructive in this respect.

DO AMERICANS TRUST THE MEDIA?@

KEBBA JATTA

November 10, 2012

Americans generally do not trust the media. Many of the people I interviewed expressed the perception that the media is too biased and that they collaborate with politicians and the powerful. The distrust for the media continues to rise throughout the past decade leading to the current low of 60% having no trust in the media, according to the PEW Research Center. Distrust for the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly has been declining since the late 1990s but reached a new low in 2012 which is also a very divisive election year. According to the GALLUP poll, the sharp decline in media trust in 2012 is caused by the independents and Republicans, which is consistent with the 2008 election-year trend. This, according to GALLUP indicates the Republican distrust of election coverage by the media they often consider liberal. Perhaps for similar reasons, Democrats are more trusting of the media, with 58% trusting the media compared to 26% for Republicans. Along with the decline in media trust is a decline in American’s interest in political news. This is especially interesting in a bitterly contested election year like 2012 where the voters need to rely on the media for facts about the hot-button issues such as the economy, immigration, healthcare, women’s health, and gay marriage.

This high level of distrust in the media in a way undermines our democracy, and it may in the end impact on voter turnout and political participation. Trust in the media, to some extent is tied to the trust in government. When citizens show high approval for the government, they often tend to show similar high approval for the media. At the end of Clinton’s presidency (and its accompanying economic boom) and the terrorist attack in 2001 for example, trust in both government and the media was high, 78% and 54%respectively. However after the start of the Iraq war, trust in both government and the media took a nose-dive and never recovered since then. Public approval for both Congress and the Judiciary also remained dismal during this period.

The sharp decline in media trust from the late 1990s to 2012 and throughout George W. Bush’s rule could be attributed to the media’s perceived complicit in building the case for the Iraq war on the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

The media enjoyed a similar high public approval during Watergate (Nixon investigations) in 1974 and the McCarthy hearings in 1954. During Watergate in 1974, trust in the media was nearly 80% largely because of the media’s role in uncovering President Nixon’s connection to crimes which led to his resignation. The McCarthy hearings involved an investigation into the conflict between Senator Joseph McCarthy and the United States Army which later became known as the so-called “hunt for communist” in the United States government. The outcome of this investigation severely discredited Senator McCarthy and led to his political downfall.

Therefore it appears that public opinion about the media are formed during major landmark events such as Watergate, the Terrorist attack of September 11, 2011, the Iraq war, etc. The way the media handles these landmark issues goes a long way in influencing public perception of the media. Perhaps also that public understanding of what the media is affects its approval or disapproval. After all, the media is not well defined, and therefore may mean different things to different people. The local media (example Public Broadcasting Service, PBS) is trusted more than the larger cable networks such as the Cable News Network (CNN), FOX news and MSNBC. Perhaps the power , dominance and pervasiveness of these cable networks in terms their reach and twenty four hours coverage contributes to the distrust and public negativity towards them. Many of the people I interviewed on Face book and in the street said they do not trust the media, but added that they trusted the smaller local media more than the larger cable networks. They also expressed their generally favorable perception of the particular media outlet they obtain news from be it CNN, FOX, MSNBC or PBS. Don, a newspaper delivery man for USA-TODAY in Shawnee, Kansas said he does not trust the media but tends to trust KCUR (a subsidiary of PBS in Kansas City) and the Kansas City STAR newspaper more than all others. “I don’t believe the media tells the truth”, he said.  Jason Smith, a University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC) graduate in communications studies who did not identify with any news outlet expressed similar distrust for the media. “They are all biased because they always pick sides”, Jason said. Jacqueline, who identified FOX news as her favorite source of news, believes that the media collaborates with the politicians to misinform the public. Jacqueline said, “All the media tells you is what the politicians want them to tell you”.

However, despite the lack of trust for the media; it continues to be the preferred source of news for most people. The media continues to be trusted more than alternative informal sources of information. Many people who criticize the media still rely on the media for information when they need it.

The media’s projection of itself as “fair and balance”, a practice referred to as “false equivalence” does not seem to help its public image either. Giving equal treatment to both sides of controversial and highly divisive issues such as evolution versus creation, climate change, and gay marriage where public perception of the truth is in ‘black and white’ only results in more anger and distrust of the media.

The media’s perceived collaboration among its practitioners ( also called pack journalism or beltway punditry) and with politicians are major reasons for its low public approval.

IN RESPONSE TO CHIEF JUSTICE AGIM:

IN RESPONSE TO CHIEF JUSTICE AGIM’S FAREWELL COMMENTS:

http://www.freedomnewspaper.com/Homepage/tabid/36/mid/367/newsid367/8166/CJ-AGIM-DROPS-HIS-LAST-BOMBSHELL/Default.aspx

KAYJATTA

The Gambia’s outgoing Chief Justice Agim must be commended for coming forward to address what he called adverse allegations made by his critics that were expunged in the front page interview with the pro-government Daily Observer. Please see the Freedom link above. Chief Justice Agim said that “for not wanting to embarrass me, the editors decided to omit certain issues raised during the interview in their publication”. The Chief Justice further claimed that he is compelled to address these serious allegations lest his “critics and detractors … believe that the interview was doctored in his favor”.

The great Nigerian geographer, Reuben K. Udo, in his book ‘Human Geography of Africa’ made an analogy of Mozambique’s migrant workers to Apartheid South Africa as (human) cash crops. I understand that the Nigerian judges in the Gambian courts may not totally fit Udo’s description of human cash crops, but they are often viewed by the Gambian population as “mercenary judges” whose primary interest is their salaries rather than the rule of law.

Chief Justice Agim said he has been “unfairly labeled as fraudulent, corrupt, manipulative, a bully and sadist, an adulterer, and a practitioner of voodoo” during his twelve years of service in the Gambia.

Now the problem with Agim’s comments on these allegations is that he has disastrously failed to exonerate himself from these serious allegations.

Firstly, Agim said that he in the past refused to dignify these accusations by ignoring them, but now feels that he needs to address them. My question is that WHY THEN DIGNIFY THEM NOW Mr. Agim? If Chief Justice Agim was really interested in addressing these issues, why did he wait until the last minute after resigning his post and he is already outside the jurisdiction of the Gambia? If Agim is a truthful person who really cares about his own personal integrity, he would have confronted these allegations in a timely manner that would allow the establishment of the truth.

Secondly, in the allegation of adulterous womanizing, Agim did not put up any rebuttal. Instead he only demanded that his critics provide the prove with regards to a particular incident where a security agent confronted him and his mistress on a private property. Well this kind of argument may work in the court of law, but certainly not in the court of public opinion. Agim further admitted that this conduct of womanizing is common among men. I guess this means that the allegation is correct. This may not be a problem for a private citizen, but for a man of Justice Agim’s standing (a Chief Officer of the court) who is required by legal ethics to be of exemplary character, it is a huge problem.

Thirdly, in the case of fraud and corruption, Agim again offered no rebuttal. Instead he built his case around the claim that no adverse finding were made against him by the Gambia government or the British High Commission. Agim knows, I am sure, that fraud and corruption in the judiciary would not be limited to the particular funds he was talking about. He also knows that in the world in which he chose to work, the ‘big fishes’ like him were hardly caught especially if they remain useful to the government.

Fourthly, in the allegations of fetishism and jujuism (lets properly call it voodoo or witchcraft), Agim actually admitted to this one, saying that he came to the Gambia “already fortified” in witchcraft. This to me is very damning. A Chief Justice so steeped in a medieval terrain of mindset is nothing short of a disgrace to the 21^st Century Gambian.

Fifthly, on the allegations of bully and manipulator, Justice Agim appears to reveal his complete ignorance of how government and the judicial branch are supposed to function. Agim needs to understand that perhaps the only difference between the Chief Justice and the other justices is purely administrative. He has no moral or legal authority to coerce other justices to compromise their independent legal opinion. To say that as Chief Justice he had to fire or punish judges who undermine him or the state is totally ridiculous.

Since Agim lacked the courage and the will to defend his and the Court’s integrity against these serious allegations while he was still in office, he should be wise enough to remain quiet forever.

OBAMA WINS RE-ELECTION:

KEBBA JATTA

President Barak Obama won re-election Tuesday night after a sweep of the battleground states. Obama defeated his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney in all of the battleground states except North Carolina where Romney won and Florida where ballots are still being counted. Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada all went to Obama in an election that was widely considered very close.

Up to the time of voting, all the major polls showed the candidates in a dead heat, often within the statistical margin of error. For example the Gallup poll taken between November 1st and 4^th showed Obama at 48% and Romney at 49% with a margin of error of plus one (+1).

Ohio, one of the most critical swing states, is what gave Obama the victory. This Mid-Western state with 29 electoral votes sits in the heart of the auto industry, and benefitted from Obama’s bold intervention to bail out the auto industry in 2010 that saved many jobs. Romney, the Republican contender opposed the bailout arguing that Ford, General Motors and Chrysler should be allowed to go through bankruptcy. Most political analysts, including John King of CNN, believed that while Obama has several possibly pathways to re-election, Romney could not possibly win the presidency without winning Ohio.

The economy was the main driving force in the election. Romney’s campaign argued that the economy didn’t perform well under Obama’s four-year rule and so change is necessary. He often touted his business experience and cited the high unemployment rate, and promised to repeal the “Affordable healthcare plan” passed by the Obama administration. The Romney campaign also promised to cut down government spending and reduce taxes on all Americans, a move widely considered to be in favor of the rich over the middle class. The Obama campaign, on the other hand argued that he has inherited a bad economy from the previous Bush administration and since then the economy has stabilized and now improving, so we must continue to move forward and not return to the economic policies that led us into the recession. Obama planned to raise taxes on those who make more than 250,000 dollars a year.

The changing demographics, due to increases in the population of minorities such as women, Hispanics, African Americans, and young people; all of whom overwhelmingly voted for Obama helped tilt the election in the president’s favor. Romney’s positions on issues important to these groups such as women’s health, immigration, student loans, Medicare and healthcare made him quite unpopular and out of touch.