Lest We Forget

Remember me, forget my fate.

Mitt Romney: Why the Republicans lost and may continue to lose

The fanfare is officially over. After hundreds of thousands of phone calls, tens of millions of tweets and billions of dollars spent on campaigning. America decided to stick with President Barack Obama.

In the hours after his victory speech, many both domestically and internationally are making huge sighs of relief to see the 44^th President re-elected, despite a clear victory in the all-important Electoral College.

Yet, for a long time, many Democrats feared the worse. Many influential commentators believed that Obama was on the verge of becoming the first Democratic President to serve one-term since Jimmy Carter. Perhaps he should’ve been.

Obama has already highlighted his desire to finish what he originally set out to do. It is true this is made easier by the fact that he no longer needs to be concerned about his re-election prospects and can ‘get on’ with the so-called job. However, for many ordinary Americans, the idea of getting the job done may appear vacuous and non-evident. For all the rhetoric Obama promised in 2008, much of his ideals and promises lie dormant. The audacity of hope became the absence of anything.

The economic legacy inherited by the Obama administration was far from healthy. Increasing unemployment, a chaotic financial system as well as dealing with two long-term wars and an ever increasing public debt. For any President arriving into White House, any sort of political legacy would need to be put to one-side whilst dealing with the bigger issues. Yet Obama chose to deal with healthcare.

There are arguments to be had about healthcare in general in America. Whether you agreed with George W. Bush extending Medicare or the universal cover provided by Obamacare. But why was this his focus? Why did Obama fail to create the jobs he said he would create? Why was the stimulus seen as the only answer to solving America’s crisis?

Some complain that the Republican majority in the House of Representatives made things impossible, but other Presidents had managed to deal with this before (Clinton springs to mind).

No incumbent President had ever gone into the polls with such poor unemployment figures and approval ratings. So the question is how did the Republicans lose it?

The wrong message

There’s no doubt that Mitt Romney was the best out of a bad bunch, but it shouldn’t deflect from the point that he is a more than competent candidate to become President. A successful businessman, family man, and politician with an excellent record as Governor, Romney was a capable of winning.

Yet, perhaps the Republicans forget the most important thing about politics. Elections are about winning. For too long the candidates slung mud and created an unhealthy portrait of each other. Commentators point at the fact that this allowed Obama to spend his campaign money during the election, but money fundraising wasn’t an issue during the election for either side.

The problem was that we saw the Republicans for what they really were and it was a right-wing party that did not reflect the rest of the electorate. Politics is tribal, but surrendering the centre-ground can be ill-afforded in any election. The GOP may have targeted the blue collar and the religious vote, but its policy towards immigration, the economy and women saw it ostracise a huge proportion and increasingly important section of the electorate: Hispanics and women. Suicidal when one looks at the make-up of the swing states.

For now, the debate will quickly move on as Obama tries to deal with the impending issue of America’s fiscal cliff but the question for the Republicans really remains where do they go next? Was Romney a failure because he wasn’t conservative enough or was it that the party is too right-wing?

2016 will see two new candidates from each side fight again. Even if the Republicans decide to lead with a woman (not Palin) or even a Hispanic, what’s more important is that they sort out their politics, otherwise they won’t be elected any time soon.

El Alamein: The end of the beginning

World War Two remains a significant story within Britain’s history. To this day, the war is imbued in our political ideologue, our history curriculum, as well the many statues and monuments commemorating the fallen.

Yet, within the patriotism and remembrance, the story of significant battles is often lost. The Battle of Britain and D-Day are far more prominent and visceral in our imagination because they represent what we see on our screens on bank holidays and at Christmas. No one ever remembers the Eastern campaign in India and Burma. No one ever remembers El-Alamein.

Yet history dictates that among Agincourt, Blenheim and Waterloo, a battle that took place in the parched and desolate desert of Egypt remains one of Britain’s finest military moments. So what makes it so important and does it occurrence really deserve to be elevated among Britain’s most celebrated military victories?

November 1942, like any month since September 1939, had not been a particularly good for the allies. For Britain, the hurried retreat from the beaches of Dunkirk, as well as the capture of Singapore by the Japanese meant morale was deflated. Despite the American entry into the war in December 1941, the burden on British and Commonwealth troops was immense. In the East, the German army was advancing towards the oil fields of the Caucasus’s and Rommel’s Fifth Panzer division was heading towards Cairo and more lucratively, the oil fields of the Middle East.

It was by no means certain, but for Hitler to obtain a constant supply of fuel for the Wehrmacht then the war in Europe was consequentially over. The fate of British India would almost certainly be decided too. At the time, it was not only the British command in Cairo’s biggest concern, it was Churchill’s.

Only a couple years before, British troops based in Africa were successful in maintaining their ground and in fact conquering further. In 1941 they had driven a weak Italian army out of Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia) as well as driving Mussolini’s forces back from Italian-occupied Libya. Yet, just as the Germans had conquered most of Europe, Hitler sent one of his most trusted and celebrated Field Marshals to resolve the problem, The Desert Fox, Erwin Rommel.

The introduction of Rommel made a huge difference to the Axis’s fortunes and gave a huge awakening to the British troops. Rommel drove the German army through British lines and within 150 miles of Cairo. Churchill saw how his commanders were being easily out-manoeuvred and losing ground quickly and at a heavy cost to the imperious Germans. The fall and subsequent retreat from the important port of Tobruk saw Churchill place Cairo, the Middle East and consequently Britain’s future war in the hands of one Bernard ‘Monty’ Montgomery.

Monty is now often recited for his tactical marvel in Egypt as well as his miscalculation at Operation Market Garden and the so-called bridge too far at Arnhem. Yet, his military career had begun as a humble junior officer in the trenches of World War One. He had seen the devastation to life and the ill-thought out planning of generals to gain or lose needless ground. Perceived as arrogant as well as a maverick, his clubbability found himself fans within the troops, yet unpopularity among fellow officers. Yet, for his dislike, Monty was an astute and forward thinking battlefield commander.

His plans at El-Alamein were by no means revolutionary, but he prepared well, he knew the lie of the land and more importantly he was able to convey this message to the troops. The subsequent victory as Churchill exquisitely told the House of Commons went down as history as the start of the fight back:

“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.

However, for all its significance, El-Alamein is presented as one of Britain’s greatest military battles because it was probably the last time British victory when British commanders were fully in control (this includes the Falklands’ War). Military historians correctly point out that Montgomery’s fortune was to some extent secured because German lines had become too extended. The British Eighth Army had been preparing for the advance for almost three weeks. Not only were they well dug-in but had the higher ground. Even taking into consideration the events of the previous few months, this battle was not as significant as it was made out to be. The importance was not the battle, but the fact that the British had shown the Germans could be beaten.

Monty’s success should be recognised, but certainly not in Egypt and certainly not more than the British and Commonwealth troops that collectively became known as the Desert Rats. Monty’s significance as a commander must be for recognising that Britain’s role had been surpassed by the Americans. He recognised that Britain could no longer take the lead and as consequence must take some of the pain when leading British troops after the D-Day landings. The loss of almost 4,000 men at Caen during Operation Goodwood, though painful, reflected Montgomery’s foresight. It is to some extent unfortunate that the failure of Market Garden saw his reputation somewhat malaise. For others, his forthright and somewhat arrogant memoirs saw him try inflating his own significance to Britain’s war victory.

Today, tourist trips to the battlefield at El-Alamein are not overly subscribed to. The area remains just as isolated as it was 70 years before. Yet it should not undermine the importance of what occurred in those late months of 1942. Blenheim and Waterloo were more significant for Britain’s political standing and strength in the decades to come. El-Alamein lacked the grace and military nous of these victories, but certainly, this was a great moment and it was significant to how the war was won.