President Obama One Year Later: No, We Can’t…

By Brigitte L. Nacos

What a difference a year makes! Twelve months ago, the overwhelming majority of Americans and people around the globe cheered as the first African-American in the history of the country became the 44^th President of the United States. Many believed in candidate and newly sworn in president Barack Obama’s message that change for the better would come under his stewardship; many believed in his assuring slogan, “Yes, We Can!” Whatever Obama promised in much detail during his amazing campaign, people were mostly uplifted by the hope, even conviction, that here was a new type of politician and leader with an agenda that was fundamentally different from George W. Bush and his disastrous policies.

Much changed during the last twelve months—but it was not the change that Obama promised and his supporters expected. Yesterday’s stunning victory of a Republican in Massachusetts’ race to fill Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate may have been in part the result of Democrat Martha Coakley’s flawed campaign and Republican Scott Brown’s clever pretension that he is an Independent. But the result was also a reflection of the popular perception that things are not going well in the country, especially with respect to the economy, and that nothing has changed in Washington’s politics as usual during the first year of Obama’s presidency. Just like the Republican victories in last fall’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, Brown’s win in Massachusetts was decided by the growing middle of Independents, the very group that had contributed significantly to Obama’s victory in November 2008, and by disillusioned Democrats who either expressed their dissatisfaction by voting for Brown or did not bother to go to vote.

To a certain degree, Obama set himself up to fail. The expectations he fueled with his promise of change linked to a most ambitious agenda were impossible to satisfy nor was his somewhat naïve assurance of ending the era of partisan polarization.

Post-partisan politics was a pipe dream to begin with; if anything, the nasty infighting between the right and left wing of the two established parties intensified—another reason for a growing segment of the electorate to be turned off. And many in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party who were the most enthusiastic supporters of candidate Obama and instrumental in his victorious primary fight against Hillary Clinton and later in his triumph over John McCain, are turned off for another reason. They blame the president for wasting time and substance by courting Republicans and conservative Democrats. They want this president to fight for and insist on an agenda of real change. The list of progressives’ discontent is long, but it is highlighted by the outrageous bargaining surrounding the health care reform and the continuation of the Bush/Cheney counterterrorism policies. If you want to get an idea about the criticism from the left, read “The Mendacity of Hope” by Roger D. Hodge in Harper’s.

Taking New Jersey, Virginia, and now Massachusetts as their cues, talking heads predict now that the elections this fall will bring about a colossal change in favor of Republicans in the Congress. While mid-term elections tend to favor the non-presidential party, much can and will happen in the nearly 10 months till Election Day in November. But unless the president and his administration as well as the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress pull together and act upon a realistic agenda that is explained to and understood by rank and file Americans, this year’s congressional elections may got the way Massachusetts went yesterday and, perhaps, set the stage for the presidential race in 2012.

First of all, administration and Democrats in Congress must concentrate on the economy and the dismal job market. To be sure, improvements will come slow. But by focusing most of all on the number one problem and concern of Americans, the perception of a do-nothing-government may decline.

Next, Democrats must go back to the drawing board with their health care reform plan. To this day, most Americans do not understand the content of the reform versions adopted by the House and the Senate. This gives critics who simply do not want reform ample room for going on the attack. Since a massive reform package has no chance, important parts must be adopted piece by piece. First in line here should be measures that promise to cut the governmental hand-outs to the insurance industry and stops insurances ability to fatten their profits at the expense of the sick and those they refuse to insure because of new or old health problems. Allowing to bringing in the same but much cheaper prescription drugs from foreign countries, too, is and should be a no- brainer for legislators—although they enjoy a most generous health care themselves. Perhaps the president and the people around him have forgotten what they learned in their undergraduate years, namely, that the chief executive—especially during real or perceived crises--must use his bully pulpit to persuade fellow-Washingtonians, especially in Congress, the public, and, when foreign policy is involved, leaders and publics abroad, and thereby enlist support. Think of Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power, Samuel Kernell’s Going Public, and Richard Rose’s The Post-Modern President and you will get the idea.  

President Obama is a charismatic communicator as he proved again and again during his election campaign but only on a few occasions during his first year in office. But failed utterly in taking a page from another great communicator's book: Ronald Reagan never tired to putting the blame for the country's economic ills onto the shoulder's of his predecessor Jimmy Carter. Doesn't the White House realize Obama's failure to similarly remind the public that the current economic and fiscal problems go back to the Bush administration? This failure contributed mightily to today's perception that everything--including the Wall Street bail-out--came upon us on Obama's watch. It is late but perhaps not too late, to change this perception if the president really tries.

However, the most important step now must be to pinpoint and adjust and in some instances change policy priorities, the second step must be the full presidential commitment to winning public support and put pressure on fellow-decision-makers—first and foremost at home but in a number of foreign policy matters abroad as well.

Comments

[Eric Chen]

Professor Nacos,

It turns out the vilification of President Bush was an illusion to trick the electorate. It worked to get Democrats elected, but the blame-Bush narrative harmed America's causes, including the liberal world order, and obstructed the serious discussions the American people have needed to understand our place in a changing competitive world.

As far as disappointment with Obama Year One, the vilification of Bush unrealistically raised expectations for President Obama because Bush normally made reasonable decisions under the circumstances. In order to fulfill the anti-Bush expectations from the presidential campaign, President Obama would be forced to act unreasonably within largely the same circumstances faced by President Bush. Therefore, by continuing many of Bush's policy goals, Obama acted reasonably as President but also disappointed many of his supporters.

Bush's presidential record stands out because it is surprisingly unremarkable given the vitriol directed against him. Notwithstanding the inherently controversial nature of the War on Terror, President Bush did not push a polarizing agenda and consistently did what he was supposed and expected to do as the chief executive, no less and (unfortunately at times) no more. Bush's legacy really only features one exceptional leadership decision: the double-down course correction in Iraq with the radically different, widely unpopular, controversial-within-the-military, population-centric counterinsurgency 'Surge'. Within the War on Terror, the initial decision to give the Taliban government an ultimatum and then invade Afghanistan after the escalation of Islamic terrorism during the 1990s and the 9/11 attacks was a no-brainer. Bush's decision to enforce the final ultimatum against Saddam was not nearly as extraordinary as portrayed, either, since Clinton had already declared Saddam failed his "last chance" and reached the presidential conclusion that regime change was the only solution for the Iraq problem by 1998. Although within the context of the War on Terror, the Iraq decision was important because it definitively marked the progressive liberal nature of the war and peace-building strategy now shared by Obama for Iraq and the wider War on Terror.

Blaming Obama for the economy problem isn't fair, but to place blame on Bush is also misleading. From what I gather, in terms of government responsibility, the finance crisis was enabled by both Democrat and Republican law-makers dating back to policies enacted during the Clinton administration. The warning signs should have been obvious, but no politician was going to commit political suicide and incur the world's wrath by pre-emptively bursting the bubble for the 'engine' of the world economy. After all, even if the money was illusory, it was bonafide by the authorities and everyone was sharing the bounty. Whereas, the end was going to be an ugly, hard fall no matter what. Bush responded with bail-outs in the early stages of the collapse, too, so the type of Obama's response to the crisis isn't a dramatic departure from his predecessor. I understand the upset against Obama on this issue, but I don't know of any substantially better government-based solutions. Nor do I believe decreasing government regulation and free-form creative destruction of our economy is the answer. There's an easy analogy to be drawn here between the leadership challenges of Iraq and the finance crisis: it was left up to Bush to solve the Iraq and wider War on Terror problem that grew under his two predecessors with inadequate tools, and it was left up to Obama to solve the finance problem that grew under his two predecessors (although Obama had the benefit of Bush dealing with the early stages of the collapse), again with inadequate tools. Also similar, without the respective crises impelling presidential action, I don't believe Bush would have changed the pre-9/11 status quo in Iraq and Obama would not have broached finance reform.

The Democrats' push on health care and cap-and-trade reform are fairer sources of criticism. I don't dispute that we need a more affordable and accessible system of health care, and I personally want universal healthcare for American citizens. But though the majority of Americans can agree there should be health care reform, the popular impression is that Democrats are not engaging the nation to deliberate the range of health care reform options, but instead are pushing through a mammoth comprehensive ideology-based law. The voter message to Democrat law-makers isn't that health care reform is wrong; the message is they need to stop and start over by engaging the full spectrum in authoring the reforms. With cap-and-trade, Americans are leery about restricting the economy at this time for environmental reasons that many people also perceive to be more ideological than practical.

Finally, despite his campaign promises to the contrary, the conduct of the Obama administration and Democratic majority has been politics as usual. Obama, as it turns out, is not quite a wunderkind, and he didn't transcend his lack of experience. Disappointing, most of all for Obama's true believers, but not unexpected for the rest of us. As far as Obama himself in his 1st year as President, I think Obama sincerely is doing his best to be a conscientious American president, no less than his predecessor. Appearance-wise, Obama seems to be aging as rapidly as Bush did; he's learning and his 2nd year should be better.