In the days following the Presidential Debate in Denver, I scoured the internet hoping to find an article that summarized the debate and hinted at how each candidate might lead if he were to be elected President in November. Peter Baker’s New York Times Article titled “Obama and Romney Clash Over Government’s Role,” did just that. Baker started by outlining the fundamental difference between Obama and Romney–namely that each candidate views the role of government differently. Obama views the role of government as ensuring fairness and promoting economic growth. Romney recognizes the fundamental needs for a government, but advocates for a more “hands-off” approach in which the people themselves are the drivers of economic change. Accordingly, Obama and Romney have drastically different ideas about taxes, healthcare, financial regulations, and how to cut the deficit.
Each candidate has a substantially different view for America and Baker’s article recognized that fact. Romney highlighted his belief that if Obama were to raise taxes, he would kill jobs. Obama cited the rising national debt and stated that it isn’t too much to ask the wealthiest and most fortunate Americans to pay a bit more. Most tellingly, Baker ended his article describing that “Obama searched for the right blend of policies and messages to diminish antipathy towards the government; while Romney advanced a revision of the Great social compact.” Baker also noted the fact that both Obama’s and Romney’s records are probably more moderate than they would like to admit, but the debate “exposed little agreement.”
Ultimately, the next Presidential election in November has the potential to substantially change the course of America’s policies.