By Stanley W. Samarasinghe

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign, towards its tail end, relied heavily on calling Barack Obama a liberal, a socialist and a redistributionist. These are over-lapping concepts but were believed to be dirty words in US politics. Then there was also the criticism from the beginning of the campaign, sometimes implicit and sometimes more explicit, that Obama was an “intellectual.” Also implied in this criticism was that having had a sound education in some of America’s best schools was a disqualification for the presidency. As strange as it may sound, these were considered “elite” traits unworthy of a prospective president. Add to that the denigration of his apparent popularity abroad and his lack of “experience” and he was considered totally disqualified to be president. Of course the idea was to create a classic class division to win the election

Millions of Americans probably were convinced by these arguments. But many more millions rejected this line of thinking last Tuesday and elected Obama as the next president. In particular the younger voters and the more educated voters appeared to have seen Obama’s liberal leanings, redistributionist tax policy, his first class education, sharp intellect and popularity abroad as qualifications for the presidency. This verdict has significant long-term implications for US politics and governance.

First, all Americans can’t be millionaires, no matter how level the playing field of opportunity may be. Thus it is only fair that the richer in society bear a somewhat higher burden in paying for those services that are for the common good. In addition, and this is important, Americans always open their pocketbooks to help the less fortunate not only in their own communities and country but also abroad. McCain’s “Redistributionist-in-Chief” taunt of Obama challenged this most basic of American traits. Obama, instead of retreating in the face of this attack, counter-punched with conviction that there was nothing wrong in some redistribution through a progressive tax system. After all one of the basic tenets of Christianity as well as every other great religion in the world is that we should share what we have by helping the less fortunate among us.

This leads me to my second point. If “socialism” and “liberalism” in the American context mean a more humane society, many voters did not see any reason to reject these ideas. In the past when Republicans used these terms Democrats ran away in fear. This only reconfirmed the suspicion in the minds of many voters that being liberal must be something really bad for the country. The Obama victory has disabused many of this false notion. America is a liberal democracy that is based on the ideal of freedom. But we now recognize that it is a freedom for all and not for one privileged section of that society. Obama had the intellectual strength and the communication skill to convey this basic truth to a sufficiently large number of voters at this election.

Finally, the outcome of this election creates a great opportunity for America to redefine its liberal ideal. President-elect Obama’s policies from giving a tax break to the middle class, and universal healthcare to tuition assistance for every young person who wants to go to college would help create a new “Humane Liberalism” that all liberals could be proud of. But it also has a big electoral dividend. The numbers suggest that the combination of a higher the level of education with higher income is the best way to strengthen the Democratic brand. This is pure win-win.