Obama, Many Problems
Published in Espresso
(Italy ) on 9 July 2009
by Moses Naim (link to original)
(Italy ) on 9 July 2009
by Moses Naim (link to original)
Translated from
by Ashley Bell .
Edited by Christie Chu.
Two wars, Iran, Korea, the economic crisis the auto crisis, gay marriage, immigration...
He looked me in the eyes and said: "We will solve this problem." Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fharenbach, officer in the U.S. Air Force, felt relieved after this promise from President Obama. But his conversation with the commander in chief had nothing to do with the two wars that the United States is fighting. Obama was simply working to modify policies toward gays in the armed forces.
What is the biggest threat that the president must face? Another spectacular attack from Al Qaeda in American territory? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars? The fall of Pakistan or Mexico? The nuclear weapons of North Korea or Iran? A new surprise economic catastrophe? A Katrina type hurricane that hits Miami? Gay soldiers? The list is long.
George W. Bush left Obama a terrible legacy, from the two wars in progress to the bad performance of the economy, to a billion of other problems ignored (like global warming, for example) or badly dealt with (like that of North Korea). All now demand immediate and focused attention. Fortunately Obama rose to power with many good intentions and much support, both inside and outside the country, which very few other American presidents before him had. Furthermore, he put together a team of very respectable professionals. Therefore, even if the problems are enormous and countless, he can face them. But will he succeed?
This is the troubling question that is coming up in conversations more and more between those who are in the secret circles in Washington. No one doubts that he has the intelligence and political ability to face many different crises. Or that his collaborators are competent. Rather, the doubt is fed by the widespread awareness that the biggest threat for him is congestion.
The system is overloaded and cannot effectively react to so many complex and diverse problems. "System" meaning not only the White House and the different departments (Defense, Treasury, Health, Internal Security, etc.) but also Congress. And those who know how the American Congress works fear that Obama could overload it and provoke paralysis, overwhelming it with problems that range from incentives for the economy to reform of financial regulation, to laws on climate change to reform on health care. To which are added those of the closing of Guantanamo, the exit from Iraq, gay marriage, the auto industry, immigration law reform and the biggest public intervention in modern history. Too much, say skeptics - convinced that Congress will not be able to face such a wide collection of issues that are technically complex, socially sensitive and politically explosive in a timely and efficient manner.
This congestion is, in part, inevitable. As Obama himself said; "I would like to be able to permit myself the luxury of choosing the problems to deal with, but it is impossible. Which would you like me to ignore: Iran, the economy, the two wars in progress? These are the cards that have been handed to me and I have no other choice but to confront all the crises at the same time. It is not a good thing, but it is reality."
This is obvious, but that's not it. The White House is convinced that it will be more difficult, if not impossible, to subsequently get approved, according to Obama's address, those reforms that he does not succeed in launching this year. Rahm Emmanuel, the head of the president's cabinet, revealed, as is known, that his number one rule is to "prevent a crisis from having devastating effects: [crises] are opportunities to realize great things."
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney assented, convinced of the validity of this principle, which they carried to the extreme limit; the terror attacks of September 11th produced a crisis that, thanks to their reaction, did not have catastrophic consequences. Because of this, they were able to invade Iraq even if Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with that attack. This explains furthermore why the Obama administration took advantage of the climate of change created by the economic crisis to introduce reforms that the system otherwise would not have supported. The solution of the crisis does not require new polities concerning the environment, health care or immigration.
It is very probable that not all of Obama's program will be adopted. Errors will be made and some reforms will be unfinished. But the president retains that this is inevitable and that it is better than a more gradual approach. Perhaps he is right, and it is better like this. And not only for the Americans.
He looked me in the eyes and said: "We will solve this problem." Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fharenbach, officer in the U.S. Air Force, felt relieved after this promise from President Obama. But his conversation with the commander in chief had nothing to do with the two wars that the United States is fighting. Obama was simply working to modify policies toward gays in the armed forces.
What is the biggest threat that the president must face? Another spectacular attack from Al Qaeda in American territory? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars? The fall of Pakistan or Mexico? The nuclear weapons of North Korea or Iran? A new surprise economic catastrophe? A Katrina type hurricane that hits Miami? Gay soldiers? The list is long.
George W. Bush left Obama a terrible legacy, from the two wars in progress to the bad performance of the economy, to a billion of other problems ignored (like global warming, for example) or badly dealt with (like that of North Korea). All now demand immediate and focused attention. Fortunately Obama rose to power with many good intentions and much support, both inside and outside the country, which very few other American presidents before him had. Furthermore, he put together a team of very respectable professionals. Therefore, even if the problems are enormous and countless, he can face them. But will he succeed?
This is the troubling question that is coming up in conversations more and more between those who are in the secret circles in Washington. No one doubts that he has the intelligence and political ability to face many different crises. Or that his collaborators are competent. Rather, the doubt is fed by the widespread awareness that the biggest threat for him is congestion.
The system is overloaded and cannot effectively react to so many complex and diverse problems. "System" meaning not only the White House and the different departments (Defense, Treasury, Health, Internal Security, etc.) but also Congress. And those who know how the American Congress works fear that Obama could overload it and provoke paralysis, overwhelming it with problems that range from incentives for the economy to reform of financial regulation, to laws on climate change to reform on health care. To which are added those of the closing of Guantanamo, the exit from Iraq, gay marriage, the auto industry, immigration law reform and the biggest public intervention in modern history. Too much, say skeptics - convinced that Congress will not be able to face such a wide collection of issues that are technically complex, socially sensitive and politically explosive in a timely and efficient manner.
This congestion is, in part, inevitable. As Obama himself said; "I would like to be able to permit myself the luxury of choosing the problems to deal with, but it is impossible. Which would you like me to ignore: Iran, the economy, the two wars in progress? These are the cards that have been handed to me and I have no other choice but to confront all the crises at the same time. It is not a good thing, but it is reality."
This is obvious, but that's not it. The White House is convinced that it will be more difficult, if not impossible, to subsequently get approved, according to Obama's address, those reforms that he does not succeed in launching this year. Rahm Emmanuel, the head of the president's cabinet, revealed, as is known, that his number one rule is to "prevent a crisis from having devastating effects: [crises] are opportunities to realize great things."
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney assented, convinced of the validity of this principle, which they carried to the extreme limit; the terror attacks of September 11th produced a crisis that, thanks to their reaction, did not have catastrophic consequences. Because of this, they were able to invade Iraq even if Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with that attack. This explains furthermore why the Obama administration took advantage of the climate of change created by the economic crisis to introduce reforms that the system otherwise would not have supported. The solution of the crisis does not require new polities concerning the environment, health care or immigration.
It is very probable that not all of Obama's program will be adopted. Errors will be made and some reforms will be unfinished. But the president retains that this is inevitable and that it is better than a more gradual approach. Perhaps he is right, and it is better like this. And not only for the Americans.