This paper investigates the literature on the current political situation in the United States and examines how Presidential candidate Mitt Romney can sustain a strong campaign against President Barack Obama. It identifies a campaign slogan that will resonate best with Mitt Romney’s policies and at the same time criticize the achievements of the incumbent, Barack Obama. According to the paper, Mitt Romney’s campaign would focus on creating jobs for all Americans unlike Barack Obama’s administration that seemed to have more concern about the middle class. The campaign is meant to win the support of wealthy Americans who look unwilling to support Barack Obama because his policies are not as friendly to them.
The slogan “Change for All” is not only original, but also addresses the salient issues that are likely to shape up the political landscape in the next general election. First, it seeks to portray the President Obama’s administration as untrustworthy and one that should not be trusted with a united society. In 2008, President Obama’s campaign team campaigned on the platform of change that American’s could trust. However, most of the policies, including healthcare reforms have been criticized for being extremely inclined towards the middle class. Thus, a ”Change for All” slogan would cast doubts on Obama’s reform agenda as one that tries to fix a wedge between the social classes of Americans rather than unite the people. Essentially, it would try to show that President Obama administration has failed to comprehensively address American challenges and does not deserve a second term in office (Shear 18).
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s ideologies include job creation for all the social classes in America. Indeed, it has always been a Republican ideology to protect the businesses of successful entrepreneurs. Thus, adding to it the interests of the middle class would widen its scope in terms of appeal to the electorate. In addition, the campaign should try to focus on energy production in America because the Obama administration has never been decisive about it. Indeed, President Obama had previously shown leniency towards the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and in effect put a ceiling to America’s energy production. However, Mitt Romney should continue to stress during his campaign that success of the American people should come first. The other ideology that would fit in this campaign is the idea of business cooperation with the Chinese governments. According to financial analysts, such cooperation would create more jobs for the American people regardless of the social class. Thus, a “Change for All” slogan would definitely resonate well with these ideologies and portray the candidate Mitt Romney as perfectly suitable for a united and prosperous America (Shear 32).
In order to disorient President Obama’s campaign team, Mitt Romney should focus on healthcare and taxes because the Obama administration doesn’t seem to have won the support of all Americans with the reforms. There is little doubt that President Obama’s campaign would line up the reforms in this sector as some of the greatest achievements of President Obama. Thus, seeking to discredit them as inconsequential and selective therapy for ailing Americans would have a great impact on the electorate. Although these reforms may be popular with the middle class, their level of support in the upper class of Americans is certainly minimal. This rises from the fact that while reducing taxation on the middle class, the administration filled the taxation gap by increasing the amount of taxes paid by corporations and successful entrepreneurs. Thus, a “Change for All” slogan would effectively win the support of the upper class of Americans (Shear 12).
In conclusion, an incumbent that campaigned on the platform of change would find it hard to ride on the same wave if the supposed changes are made unpopular with the electorate. Mitt Romney’s campaigns will certainly succeed in discrediting Obama’s message of change.