The Battles of Obama

By Michael Shifter
April 1, 2009

Una versión de este artículo está disponible aquí.

“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it…he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was that we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

These comments puzzled many Democrats accustomed to hearing such praise for our quintessentially conservative president from Republicans – not from someone of their own political party. But, as we are finding out, Obama is an unusual politician. His words were sincere. After two months in office, it is clear that Obama is intent on fundamentally transforming the United States – not just tinkering on the margins. It is in this respect – not in an ideological sense – that he seeks to resemble Reagan.

Obama’s huge appetite for change has been greatly aided by the unprecedented economic disarray he inherited. If things are going smoothly, it is harder to make a persuasive case for overhauling the health care and education systems or launching a “green revolution.” All of that, and more, Obama proposes to do once he has saved the housing, banking and automobile sectors.

Everything is broken and Obama wants to tackle it all at once. He has no choice but to deal with the immediate crisis, but he has decided that is not enough. He is taking advantage of the depth of the crisis and his own popular support to try and reorder the country’s priorities towards a more progressive, redistributionist agenda – a mirror image of what Reagan did. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” in the words of Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff. “What I mean by that is that it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”

Obama’s gamble was on display in his first address to a joint session of Congress on February 24th and when he presented his ambitious, $3.6 trillion 2010 budget proposal a few days later. Even Obama’s harshest critics recognize his formidable communication skills, and in his speech the president sounded at once like Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Roosevelt conveyed the urgency of the Great Depression, warning Americans, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” At a moment of deep crisis, Roosevelt reassured the country with a steady voice and a set of social protection policies encapsulated in The New Deal. In contrast, Johnson established the Great Society initiative, which introduced programs like Head Start pre-school education and Medicaid low-cost healthcare, during the relatively prosperous and optimistic 1960s. Obama senses this is a moment of both profound anxiety yet great possibilities. So far the country seems to be with him.
 
Beyond fixing the current crisis, Obama has made it clear he will stand by the priorities outlined during his campaign – health care, education, and energy. He hopes to accomplish major reforms in each area during his first year in office. Though Obama has shown a willingness to spend a lot of money to jumpstart the economy, he is also making the case that substantial cuts in government spending will eventually be necessary to control the deficit. He is proposing a “grand bargain” with the American people – revive the economy through spending but then pull back and exercise discipline. It is a delicate balancing act that will test Obama’s power of persuasion and political leadership.

Among the many obstacles in Obama’s path to success two stand out: Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are betting that Obama’s gamble will prove to be ill-advised and fail, and then they will reap the political rewards. The nearly $800 billion stimulus package got no Republican support in the House and only three votes in the Senate. After eight years of massive tax cuts and the costly Iraq War, Republican protests over fiscal profligacy or “socialism” ring hollow. A more serious criticism is that Obama is trying to do too much at once. He should, some argue, wait until the economy is strong again before tackling such sweeping government reforms.

Unfortunately, the Democrats made it too easy for the Republicans to vote against the package, dashing Obama’s admirable hope for bipartisanship. Having been out of power for eight years under a largely uncooperative White House, many Democrats reflexively kept the partisan battles going. Now it was their turn in power. They pushed pet projects from their constituents that had been held up for years, but many were based more on political gain than sound policy. Finally given access to government spoils, many Obama’s party failed to heed his appeal to end “politics as usual.”

Obama may have some problems with Republicans and Democrats but the American people are generally on his side. When he has difficulties in Washington, Obama will get out into the country, activate the network that got him elected and mobilize pressure on elected officials. That is a sensible, strategic decision that takes into account Obama’s strengths as an orator and his image as an “outsider” committed to changing Washington.

On a number of important and symbolic measures, in fact, Obama has already made his mark, just with a stroke of a pen. Not requiring Congressional approval, Obama has issued executive orders to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, limit CIA interrogation techniques, enable states to set tougher emission standards, and allow federal funding for aid agencies that perform abortions or embryonic stem cell research. With such decisions, Obama has sent clear signals that the US will be governed and perceived differently during his presidency.

Obama knows that his presidency will mainly be judged on his ability to dig the US out of its deep economic hole. If he had to choose, he would be a domestic president and leave foreign policy to his competent cabinet. But he doesn’t get to make that decision. Crises throughout the world will inevitably draw Obama’s attention to foreign policy. The list of challenges and trouble spots is long, with the Middle East and Afghanistan at the top. Pressures to adjust the timetable may mount if the situation deteriorates, but Obama’s plan for the withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq is reasonable and popular. The biggest worry is Afghanistan, where Obama is increasing US troop strength but does not yet have a clearly articulated strategy to measure progress or eventually exit. Some fear that Afghanistan could turn out to be the quagmire that Vietnam was for Johnson or Iraq was for Bush.

Faced with an agenda more daunting than for any other US president in recent memory, Obama will have little time for Latin America. The one exception is Mexico, which has rapidly risen to the top of the policy agenda because of the drug cartel wars and the deteriorating security situation. Just in February, for example, more people were killed by drug-related violence in the city of Juarez than in Iraq. More aid for the Calderón government is forthcoming, and momentum seems to be building to stanch the flow of the US arms used in the vast majority of the country’s drug murders.

On Cuba, some restrictions put in place under Bush on travel and remittances have already been relaxed.  Other, gradual changes in coming years are likely. The Cuban American community is neither as hardline nor influential on US policy as it once was. An opening towards Cuba under Obama will have enormous symbolic value and will be cheered in many quarters, particularly Latin America.

Obama will hear a great deal about Cuba and many other issues of concern in Latin America when he makes his first trip to the region at the summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. But surely at the top of the agenda will be the serious effects of the current economic and financial crisis on the region. Brazil’s president Lula was right when he said that the best thing Obama can do to help Latin America is put its own economic house in order. It is hard to know how far Obama will move to change US policy towards Latin America, but it is safe to predict that he at least will listen carefully and understand the hemisphere’s complex challenges.

The quality of the team working on Latin America policy will be critical. Assistant Secretary of State Tom Shannon, a highly respected foreign service officer, has been asked to remain at least through the Summit, and his replacement has yet to be announced. As working through the Summit are the ambassador to the OAS Hector Morales and special advisor for the Summit Jeff Davidow, who had served as ambassador to Mexico and Venezuela. The only “new face” named so far is Dan Restrepo, a lawyer who has worked on Latin America policy in the US Congress and at a policy center Washington, DC. He will be the special assistant to the president and director of Western hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council. In the campaign, Obama talked about appointing a “special envoy for the Americas,” but there has been no mention of this position since he took office.

As he nears the 100-day mark of his presidency, Obama is showing that elections have real consequences.  We do not know whether he will be able to resolve the economic crisis and usher in his transformative vision.  But at least we know we now have a leader.