The Obama Presidency Two Years On

In general it is true to say that many around the world, particularly throughout Europe, greeted Obama’s election with relief that George W. Bush would no longer be president. Bush was seen widely as a warmongering, belligerent, (unfairly) unintelligent president who was a danger to the world. Obama’s election, in contrast, was what Stanford University Professor Josef Joffe called “a moment of relief at having a US president who made it possible for the world to love his country again.” (Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2009).

Unlike Bush, Barack Obama could claim a mandate, winning 53% of the popular vote and big majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate.

However, where Bush inherited from Clinton the first balanced budgets since 1969, and sought to pursue a “compassionate conservatism” agenda, Obama became president at an extraordinarily difficult moment for America. He faced the unprecedented problem of a world-wide economic downturn, with a rapidly escalating budget deficit, whilst fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a broader war against terror.

Given the enormity of his task, it is not surprising that he began his Administration with a message that was both pragmatic and bipartisan – both domestically and globally. His inaugural speech contained an announcement that he was willing to reach out to any enemy that unclenched its fists – this was, perhaps, as directed at politicians and opponents back home as it was to the leaders of North Korea and Iran.

At the beginning, Obama often deferred to the Congressional Democratic leadership to write key legislation, such as the stimulus bill and healthcare reform. Unlike Bush, who was an ex-Governor, Obama is the first president since John F. Kennedy (excepting the unelected Ford) to come from Congress. This deference to Congress was, in part, designed to restore the concept of legislative-executive partnership, but it left him open to accusations of partisanship, something not helped by Nancy Pelosi’s abrupt style.

This was made worse by the perception that Obama’s first year as president produced what many regarded as a Democratic Party wish list – or rather legislation centred on the issues where Republicans and Democrats disagreed the most.

This was highlighted by his introduction of healthcare reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was a $938 billion overhaul which extended coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. The nature of his success in pushing this through Congress cannot be underestimated given the opposition – it was what Joe Biden told the president at the signing in ceremony a “big fucking deal”.

To push the bill through, Obama cleverly co-opted the most powerful interest groups in advance, most notably the health-insurance industry which will benefit from tens of millions of new customers, and the pharmaceutical industry, who supported Obama’s bill once their interests were protected.

But, he was opposed by mostly “ordinary people” who did not understand or like what was being proposed, and by Republicans who opposed what they saw as a massive expansion of the powers of Federal government - not one Republican in the House or Senate voted for his reform.

This was typical of the first two years of his Administration. Obama would admit at the end of last year that he misjudged the depths of partisan polarization and had not identified potential areas of compromise, most notably failing to find an issue that was similar to Clinton's decision to work with Republicans on welfare reform in 1990s.

As Obama has discovered, conservatives have mobilised in opposition, demonstrated by the continuing popularity of right wing shock jocks, Fox News, and the burgeoning Tea Party movement that rails against any expansion of federal government.

Though much of this opposition is polemicised, with accusations ranging from Obama being a socialist through to a fascist, the debate continues to highlight two fundamental problems – the lack of compromise as groups become more and more entrenched, and the increasing narrowness of the political centre in America.

There has also been a sense that Obama’s presidency has failed to capitalise on the mood of his election in 2008 which many feel represented a transformative moment, bringing people together. In particular, the economic collapse seemed to prove that Republicans’ faith in deregulation of the economy and in free markets, epitomised by Reagan, was misguided, or so many liberal, big-government Democrats thought at the time.

However, this proved not to be the case. Arguably, the country has reattached itself to its more centrist moorings, or even moved to the right.

Furthermore, there is no consensus about the means of economic recovery and there is much inter-party disagreement regarding the role of government in restoring prosperity. This is highlighted by the fact that in opposition the Republican Party appears fairly homogenous, whilst the Democrats are more diverse, for example there are Blue Dog Conservative Democrats who oppose government expansion and deficit growth and challenged such programmes as Healthcare reform. There are also divides in the arty over free trade and protectionism.

As a result, Obama has been unable to emulate Bush’s party-style government, whilst the Republican legislators have been united in voting against his proposals, most notably in the Senate where the lack of a Democratic supermajority (60 seats) has proved crucial.

But, Obama has achieved much.

Norman Ornstein, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently argued in 'The Washington Post' that the last Congress was “one of the most productive” since the 89th Congress of 1965-66, during which Lyndon Johnson effectively created the Great Society.

Since the dying months of the Bush Administration, with his Troubled Asset Relief Programme, and the beginning of the Obama Administration, federal government has spent $700 billion to bail out the banks whilst the Recovery Act o f 2009 allocated $787 billion in a two-year package to stimulate the economy – passed within a month of Obama taking office. He has also passed a number of other bills, from investments in green technology to making it easier for women to sue for sex discrimination, to improved financial regulation, and bailed out the car companies – once a great symbol of America’s economic power – to ensure their survival.

Even during the so-called ‘lame suck’ session after he November mid-terms last year, he succeeded in passing a tax cut in December last year; Congress voted to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy on gay soldiers in the military; and the Senate ratified the new START treaty between Russia and America, which will reduce the two countries nuclear stockpiles by a third came into force last weekend.

Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Richmond argued the lame-duck session Obama faced at the end of last year after his ‘shellacking’ in the mid-terms was actually the most productive of the 15 held since World War Two. Indeed, they may provide the impetus for his re-election. The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell victory may help mobilise his liberal and youth vote; the tax agreement provides much needed stimulus to the economic recovery; and the START success has exposed how hard the Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, will find it to unite his party in opposition.

Obama has also had some foreign policy successes, perhaps the most remarkable of which is the agreement with Russia to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to reduce the two countries nuclear stockpiles by a third. It came into being at the weekend.

When Obama became president there was a sense that the country was at a very different place ideologically – that is was ready for healthcare reform and an enormous stimulus package. However, that no longer appears to be the case.

When the Clinton administration faced similar difficulty, they were quite adept at reorienting themselves to the centre ideologically. It will be interesting to see if Obama can do this because one significant problem the Democrats have had is creating a compelling vision of where they want to lead the country. Though Obama has achieved key initiatives at home and abroad, they do not seem to be part of a broader, conceptualised agenda of what Obama’s America is.

This is not helped by the fact that many regard Obama’s agenda as being too diverse and needs more explicit focus on the economic recovery – compounding a sense that many Americans have that he is out of tough with the concerns of many ordinary Americans.

There are complaints about Obama that he is too cerebral and analytical in office. That he does not "feel the people's pain" as visibly as he should. However, his speech at the memorial service for victims of the Tucson massacre last month may go a long way to improving his image here.

The criticism, however, ignores a basic truth about the modern presidency: the campaign to win it requires a candidate to promise far more than he can possibly deliver.

In Mr Obama's case, the mismatch between words and deeds has been greater than usual. One reason has been the ferocity of a Republican opposition whose only ambition is to block every piece of legislation he proposes. The other is an ever more dysfunctional system of government that makes it easy for them to do so.

What, no realism?

Two interesting things come out of the Government's National Security review announced yesterday. The first, that the major threats envisaged will be carried out predominantly by non-state actors (terrorism, cyberattacks) and mother nature (disease and national disasters). The second, that not one of the First Tier threats would be deterred by Britain possessing nuclear weapons.

Obama and the mid-terms

Many around the world, particularly in Europe, greeted the election of Barack Obama in 2008 with relief. His predecessor, George W. Bush was considered by some to be a warmongering, belligerent, and unintelligent president who had squandered the budget surpluses of the Clinton years and launched an increasingly unpopular war against terrorism. From the outset, the controversial circumstances surrounding his election in 2000 – not least the hanging chads of Florida – had raised questions about his legitimacy as president. Something which never truly faded away - so much so that Cuba offered to send election monitors in 2004 and 2008!
Barack Obama’s election was, in comparison, what Stanford University Professor Josef Joffe called “a moment of relief at having a US president who made it possible for the world to love his country again.” (Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2009).
Unlike Bush, Obama could claim a mandate, winning 53% of the popular vote, with accompanying majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate. Interestingly, he was the first president since John F. Kennedy (excepting the unelected Ford) to come from Congress. But, of course, the most significant fact of his election was that he was America’s first African American president. The enormity of that moment cannot be underestimated.

To win the election, however, Obama cleverly played down his ethnic background whilst simultaneously using his race to reach out to new groups of voters, particularly those below 30. In effect he ran not as an African American candidate but as a candidate who happened to be African American.

This, arguably, was the key to Obama’s success. Traditionally in America voting has been polarised between the races, with whites mostly voting for white candidates and blacks voting for black candidates where possible. This has often disadvantaged minority candidates. Obama overcame this by effectively deracialising his campaign. He skilfully utilised new media, notably the internet, and galvanised grass roots campaigning. Through an astute mix of symbolism and substance he was able to attract African American and Hispanic voters in record numbers. He also went against conventional wisdom by employing a fifty state strategy that targeted states that Democrats had written off since the backlash against civil rights legislation in the1960s, in particular the Old Confederacy states of the South. These Obama brought back into play for the Democratic Party. In the process he built a coalition of liberals, independents and disaffected Republicans, with unprecedented flows of cash.

What is too early to tell is whether Obama has created a new voting bloc comparable to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition of the 1930s that saw the Democrats dominate electoral politics for a generation. Young, Hispanic and African American voters many have turned out in huge number, but the problem Obama will have is maintaining their enthusiasm for change in 2012. Already independent voters are moving away from Obama, and his approval ratings are now below 50%. Voters also appear to be reattaching themselves to their more centrist moorings. It already looks like the Democrats will suffer significant losses in the mid-terms in November.
What is interesting is that in response Obama has effectively sought to continue the methods that guaranteed success in 2008. Since becoming president he has engaged in what some call a “permanent campaign” to shape public opinion and hold on to those who elected him. The internet has proved crucial in this, as has the continuation of grass roots campaigning. However, as Obama has discovered, conservatives have mobilised in opposition, demonstrated by the continuing popularity of right wing shock jocks, Fox News, and the burgeoning ‘Tea Party’ movement that rails against any expansion of Federal Government.
Though much of this opposition is polemicised, with accusations ranging from Obama being a socialist through to a fascist, the debate continues to highlight two fundamental problems – the lack of compromise as groups become more and more entrenched, and the narrowness of the political centre in America.
Part of Obama’s task will now be to do what the Clinton Administration skilfully did from 1994 onwards. When Clinton faced similar difficulties, he reoriented himself to the centre ideologically, undercutting Republican support.

But the biggest difficulty Obama faces is one that lies at the heart of the modern presidency: the campaign to win it requires a candidate to promise far more than he can possibly deliver.
In Obama’s case, the mismatch between words and deeds has been greater than usual. One reason has been the ferocity of a Republican opposition whose only ambition often appears to be simply is to block every piece of legislation he proposes. The other is an ever more dysfunctional system of government that makes it easy for them to do so. Obama must act quickly if he is to recover. The results in November will either prove his undoing as Republican gains make it impossible for him to continue his ambitious agenda, or they prove to be the making of his presidency.

Look Left, Look Right, Look Right Again....

One surprising outcome of the credit crunch that began in 2008 was the resurfacing of the ideas of Karl Marx. Many commentators, from all sides of the political spectrum, turned to Marx as they attempted to grapple with the complexities of the causes of this extraordinary event. Some even went so far as to say that liberal capitalism as we know it in the West was dead, or at best, irrevocably changed.
What was interesting about this debate is the lack of impact. Though Marx may have resurfaced as a critique of capitalism, the Left have failed to provide a constructive, unified alternative to the system. Even at the most populist level despite the almost universal condemnation of those who work in the banking sector, many are still receiving huge bonuses. Though state intervention has been considerable in Britain and the USA, and has arguably contributed to the survival of their economies, the current political debate in the UK is centred on who will cut public services the most in the coming decade, not who will provide for the poor or tackle the inequalities that deregulated, free markets have produced. Even in America where President Obama has sought to expand healthcare to include the 40 million or so who do not have access to adequate medical treatment, he has been branded as a socialist for proposing a shared state/private business partnership. Capitalism has prevailed....

‘For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken ... we shall be made a story and a by-word throughout the world.’ (John Winthrop, 1630)

David Simon and Ed Burns’ ‘The Wire’ has provided an informed and key critique of the decline of the democratic American ‘City upon a Hill’ ideal within the urban dystopia of Baltimore. From its inception as a brilliantly informed police procedural to the expansion of its interests in subsequent seasons concerning the linkage between drug crimes, policing, the collapse of blue collar life, social depravation, institutional compromise, the public school system, media compliance and political self-interest, the drama has sought to occupy a central role in defining the US social agenda. Throughout, Simon and Burns, along with several writers such as George Pellicanos and Richard Price, have established a body of work over sixty episodes which has made vital points on the dichotomies which face American civic life.
The programme has explored issues of race, sexuality, social injustice, individual liberties, anti-authoritarianism, corporate power and public malfeasance. In such a manner, ‘The Wire’ explicitly comments on the positive and negative American values of political liberty and the principles of individual activism against corporate and political institutional stasis. However, the programme does not provide a simplistic or populist critique of US individualism and demonstrates through the recklessness of the protagonist Detective Jimmy McNulty the moral ambivalences which can affect such forms of behaviour. It does, however, remain mindful of the appalling consequences of the stifling ‘chain of command’ he faces as exemplified by the rise of McNulty’s nemesis Deputy Commissioner of Operations Bill Rawls.
Therefore, ‘The Wire’ relates to the broader political and social debates which have defined the modern US polity. Through, the show’s satirical and dramatic constructions there has been a sustained dissection of democratic traditions, societal relations, the failure of drug policies, anti-authoritarianism, and power structures. Moreover, Simon and Burns’ social commentary refers to range of filmic references which litter the show, most explicitly in relation to Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Paths of Glory’ (1957), Sam Peckinpah’s ‘The Wild Bunch’ (1969) and William Friedkin’s ‘The French Connection’ (1971), These vignettes show how the writers have utilised the themes of these films to make their critiques on institutional stasis and moral ambivalence as against individual codes of loyalty and honour as displayed by a diverse range of the street characters including Bubbles, Cutty, Bodie and Omar.
Finally, the show is resonant to the contemporary US political agenda. Most especially, Barack Obama made explicit reference the value of the programme in his 2008 Presidential election campaign. Obama made it clear in his praise of the show and Omar, the street-smart gay drug hi-jacker with his own code of honour, that the programme tied in with his vision of of communitarian democratic practices in which social ills will be tackled though a coalition of mutually beneficial social groups. Thus, ‘The Wire’ demonstrates, through it masterful storytelling, that the eyes of the world are upon America once more.

Iran's attacks on the West

Since the beginning of unrest in the aftermath of the Iranian election, much has been made in the UK of the almost Mugabe-like attacks by Ali Khamenei, and others, on Gordon Brown, Great Britain, and the BBC. Part of this can be explained by the legacy of distrust between the two countries, not least because of Britain’s involvement in the coup of 1953.

What is more striking, however, is what is not being said. There are few outspoken attacks on Barack Obama and the United States of America. This can only be deliberate. Though it is unlikely to be driven by a fear of the USA launching a military attack on Iran on the scale of “Iraqi Freedom” – the US does not have the military resources nor the domestic support to do this at present – it could indicate a shift in emphasis amongst Iranian foreign policymakers as they seek to readjust to Obama’s pledge to reach out to those who unclench their fists.