Sep 24 2009
An update on President Obama
Let me make it clear at the outset. I think it was great news that President Obama demonstrated that skin colour and background is no bar to the highest political office in the world. That is a good advert for American democracy. He is a fluent and stylish communicator with some new things to say.
Nor should your background as President protect you from the normal barrage of well meant advice, criticism, ideological disagreement and downright party hostility that characterises a healthy democracy.
I do believe that if a leader charts a good course, if he is seen to be addressing the problems that matter most and to be working to a better solution in most of them, then he will ride out the noises off and prosper. That I guess makes me an optimist. I also believe if a leader fails to tackle the big issues, or tackles them in a way which makes them worse, he will be rumbled and in due course fall at the ballot box. If you do not believe these things, you struggle to defend democracy itself.
The President has chosen to tackle a large number of issues at the same time, which makes it difficult for him to grasp all the necessary detail, to build the political coalitions each one requires for passage on the Hill and in the country, and to expend enough political capital on each to see them through. In some cases victory in one would make victory in another more difficult.
He wants to
1. Cut the USA’s carbon output
2. Lead an economic recovery
3. Push through a substantial and expensive health reform
4. Change America’s relations with Russia and China
5. Create peace in the Middle East
He is at his weakest on the economy. He came to office agreeing with most of Bush’s plan to spend and borrow more, along with bailing out the banks. He has not altered the Bush policy much, keeping to the Bush line on failing banks and failing car companies. He has spent some more – but Bush might well have done the same if he had stayed in office. He has borrowed some more, but Bush was good at borrowing too. The US economy will have a recovery of sorts from the ultra low interest rates and the substantial injections of cash. The problem of curbing the deficit remains work for another day. Indeed if he is successful wtih his health strategy the deficit will get substantially worse.
In the Middle East his decision to increase the troops and the fighting in Afghanistan is in tension with his wish to change perceptions of the USA and to become a collaborator rather than be the policeman of a particular view of how the Middle East should be governed. It is also another reason why the deficit will stay high. His words are soothing, but his actions are still warlike. As he changes the rhetoric towards Russia his critics will say he is being too soft and the Russians will take advantage. Let’s hope his critics are wrong, and he does harness Russian help over Iran and nuclear weapons, for that would be progress.
It is too early to say whether this will be a great Presidency, a mediocre Presidency or a great failure. It could be any of those. The words of change have to be matched by the actions of change. So far there is more change of rhetoric than of action. His best bet might be to settle on just one or two objectives for his first term and put his full weight behind those, claiming less change for the other areas.
16 Responses to “An update on President Obama”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
1. Cut the USA’s carbon output
2. Lead an economic recovery
3. Push through a substantial and expensive health reform
4. Change America’s relations with Russia and China
5. Create peace in the Middle East
It takes two to tango! Russian & Chinese foreign policy is aimed at bringing about the downfall of the USA. Without, of course, destroying themselves in the process. It is not the US attitude that needs to change – it is theirs.
No’s 1 & 3 will make No 2 much harder.
He should concentrate on domestic affairs, get the economy sorted out and take a long view on 1 & 2.
Rather like our ruling classes!
Understand perfectly your argument about dilution of effort.
Problem is the last person in the job left so many things to correct.
So only solution is to delegate to a trusted member of your chosen team (Cabinet/Board of Directors), for most of the day – day slog, as only as a team can you make progress. But you still remain the figurehead and in touch and control of policy.
The problem is having enough effective, trusted and capable members in your team.
Me thinks that the next Government here, will have exactly the same problems.
You cannot ignor any of the following, to just concentrate on a couple of subjects:
The Banks
The Economy
Rising Unemployment
Public Service cuts
Wars
NHS
Defence
Foriegn policy
EEC
The reason why we are in a mess is exactly because the men in charge of the Country for the past 12 years have not delegated or trusted anyone else, other than perhaps Lord Mandy, and Alistair Campbell, both spin doctors.
Of course he was elected on a patform of deficit reduction and no tax increases on average Americans, so we have the absurdity of the inusrance scheme being called a ‘charge’ not a tax.
As to the priorities 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive under current circumstances what ever ‘win-win’ nonsense the greens spout and everyone sane knows this. 3 is the democratic ‘touchstone’ issue but he’s already running away from the more outlandish stuff (serious plaudits to Dan Hannan by the way). 4 is possible and do-able he should focus on this, as to 5, well it depends what you mean. Hamas and Netanyahu doing the bunny-hug on the whitehouse lawn seems ambitious, but getting a minor treaty through and shouting it from the rooftops is quite possible. It won’t be peace, but it’s an ‘achievement’ he can crow about in 2012.
Assuming however the clueless Republicans can get their act together and nominate someone credible like say Governor Jindal, then Obama is surely a one-termer.
Unless the man is a supermortal then is doomed to failure on all matters.
He makes the mistake of all new leaders; of having delusional views on his capacity to solve problems.
At least Blair and Brown almost got away with it by having the solutions before addressing the problems…… and a bit of luck with Ireland.
One thing I learnt in Industry was that no organisation can deal with more than three major initiatives at the same time. Three is pushing your luck at that. Management always overestimates the capability of the organisation to absorb change.
I still remember a taxi driver in Colorado telling me, “… can you see America electing a president who’s middle name is Hussein”. Middle America didn’t expect it to happen and the PR people have quietly dropped the “H” in Barack H Obama II.
BTW. As the historians are sharpening their quills to write the history of the credit crunch – at least the first few chapters – the “we have been here before” caucus, is putting the following up as an exemplar, it’s long. FIAT MONEY INFLATION IN FRANCE
How It Came, What It Brought, How It Ended.
http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/node/224025
Your’re another one that’s fallen for the ‘carbon footprint’ crap…I would have thought you had more brains.
Obama is a walking disaster for the U.S.A. You are being far too kind.
He in single-handedly selling their strength, their economy and their world position down the river and at the end of it all I’d be very surprised if he had universal healthcare to show for it.
I think he is like Blair, a good self advertiser but that is about it. Probably nicer & more honest than Blair.
On the other hand I would give at least even chances that Sarah “starting in January we will build nuclear plants” Palin will replace him. Most British people know nothing about her except what the BBC say & they lie in a way the American media would like to if the audience didn’t already know something about her. I recently talked to a very intelligent conservative lady who had entirely swallowed the BBC line. However Palin was a very capable executive, ending Alaska’s budget deficit & anybody reading her Facebook page can see she has a very strong grasp of issues, a deep respect & understanding of American constitutionalism & the ability to handle words in a way any politician would be glad of. I am quite certain that had the policy i quoted been done the US would now be out of recession. Her opposition to the global warming scam also shows her intelligence & indeed courage.
Partly by chance the lightning of history has struck her, as it struck Obama & the American people & all western civilisation should be glad it has struck such an intelligent, capable & honourable person.
British politicians who merely follow our media may find themselves well outside her turning circle when she is elected.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Like you I have some time for Mrs Palin save for one issue. She is (as suggested by Wikipedia) a bible literalist. I simply could not vote for anyone who takes the bible literally as a cursory reading of some of the old testamant books would confirm.
Neil Craig Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 10:06 am
All that wiki actually quotes her as saying is that she is a “Bible believing Christian” which, except in the higher reaches of the CofE, is almost a tautology. It also says she was raised Catholic & Catholocism & Bible literalism do not go together. My impressiion is that, like many people who think the church is a good influence on the kids she is more interested in it socially than theologically. I write this as an athiest myself.
In some cases, such as the claim she wanted to ban library books, what she said has been deliberately twisted out of context. Paradoxically this may work to her advantage since it will now be impossible to persuade the religious right not to vote for her.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
September 25th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Mmm… not so sure, she certainly got an unfair ride (especially compared to the kid gloves Obama was handled with) but as I understand it, bible believing Christians really believe that a woman made from a man’s rib, was persuaded by a talking snake to eat the fruit of a magic tree, God wasn’t best pleased and this caused the downfall of man, (sic).
I regard such beliefs as utterly infantile and ludicrous and thus I could not vote for someone who effectively suspends critical thinking to believe in fairy stories. Some of the fundamentalists would no doubt see the thermonuclear destruction of cities around Armageddon as a good thing as it would be a harbinger of christ’s second coming.
I should perhaps clarify, one of my closest friends is a Christian and he is quite able to see the Bible as sometimes allegorical since it was read in simpler times as well as our own. Whilst I don’t share his belief, it is quite possible to see some rational in this position, but not in the position of anyone who literally believes in a sinful talking snake.
So which 2 options will the next Conservative Govt focus on? Is it any wonder Labour are pushing the country as far left as it can if you can only focus on 2 of the issues….
Reply: Recovery and curbing the deficit
I’m glad to see that O’Barmy is at least a good judge of character, treating Gormless Brown as the waste of carbon that he is.
A minor slip, Mr Redwood, which allows me to pass on a fine piece of information of potential use in pub-quizzes (if there are any pubs left). You wrote of Bush continuing in office, of course he could not have done so because he had already been elected twice.
And the piece of trivia? It’s this – it seems to be commonly thought that a US President can serve a maximum of 8 years, in fact the maximum possible term is 10 years. Although no one may stand for a third term after having been elected to two four-year terms, someone who succeeds to the office of President may then stand for election twice provided he has served not more than 2 years of his predecessor’s term. Thus, he/she can serve two years, then get elected for 4 years, then get elected again for 4 years, making 10. It’s all in the 22nd Amendment to their Constitution.
Hands up anyone who knew that.
reply Of course I understand Bush could not stand again immediately on completing two terms.
American and Russian interests coincide in so many areas now that I believe there really is room for a much better relationship.
In my view China is another matter. Chinese and American interests are diametrically opposed in almost everything, not least China’s complete refusal to contemplate political freedom.
Even economically, in the West we are deluding ourselves if we think the Chinese have adopted capitalism. Their large companies are in all cases dominated by the State. They are undermining our industries with ultra-cheap exports. Given the trade surplus they are running, their currency should be appreciating fast. It is not, due to deliberate Chinese government intervention, and due to their purchases of all those US Treasury bills. In the end, the US federal deficit will destroy American power around the world and ultimately lead to their replacement by China as the most powerful nation. And that is, of course, the main and deliberate aim of Chinese government policy.
As I understand it, the U.S. deficit in 2008 at the end of Bush’s presidency was $459 billion. If President Obama’s predictions are correct, the deficit this year will quadruple to $1.85 trillion. President Obama’s low carbon “Cap and Trade” proposals will be an extra tax on American companies-part of his plan to try and reduce the unprecedented levels of U.S. debt. His plans for universal health care are going to cost $billions. Barack Obama is a socialist tax and spend politician and Americans are now waking up to this. These policies are not a recipe for economic recovery.
As for the President’s foreign policy, he is courting America’s enemies: China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, while he is abandoning and snubbing America’s friends: Britain, Taiwan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, South Korea, Japan, Israel and the moderate Arab world. It’s a dangerous world and even the U.S. needs value it’s old allies.