Obama 2.0
The centrism is over. Obama is a politician who has until now been conciliatory and open to dialogue, who always sought, when possible, bipartisan congressional agreements between Democrats and Republicans. This has worked well, sometimes even very well, during his electoral ascent and his first year in the White House. Some of the victories achieved represent historic milestones that can never be erased: the first African-American to achieve the highest office in the country, the change in America’s image in the world, the prohibition of torture and illegal detentions...But all this is now over. He had already received signs that he needed to vary his slightly naïve politics. But what happened this week, coinciding with the first anniversary of his inauguration, could not be more worrisome for the president. The response has arrived quickly in the form of a new Obama, who has been immediately branded as populist and radical. We can expect plenty of surprises from the new tougher, more committed version of Obama.
The president received two loud slaps as an anniversary gift. The first came from the electorate in the Democratic fiefdom of Massachusetts, where a previously unknown local senator has removed the Democrats from the Senate seat which was practically Kennedy family property for more than half a century. The second was provided by the Supreme Court, which has authorized unlimited campaign contributions from businesses in the name of freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Both wallops constitute a lesson on the limits on the power of the most powerful president in the world. Within his sphere, Obama has less leeway than Zapatero, Berlusconi or Sarkozy, just to name three very different examples. Nonetheless, the power that any of the three Europeans has is tiny compared with Obama’s power.
The U.S. president can do a lot - punish Wall Street banks, for example. But he cannot do everything: we will see if he is able to pass health care reform. And it remains to be seen what will happen with the mid-term elections, which occur this coming November, where punishing the ruling party tends to be the norm; in Obama’s case, this effect was felt in advance in Massachusetts in the form of a special election to fill the vacancy left by Ted Kennedy, whereby fortune has given him advanced notice which could allow him to correct his mistakes. The decision of the Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority, whose members serve for life, has also been a warning for a president who wants to make many changes; he should never forget that these judges, all of whom were appointed by his predecessors, except for one, Sonia Sotomayor, will have the ultimate and final say over the significant questions which effect the country. They decided the 2000 presidential election, and now they have decided to opt for a money-driven electoral democracy, which gives the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats.
The president received two loud slaps as an anniversary gift. The first came from the electorate in the Democratic fiefdom of Massachusetts, where a previously unknown local senator has removed the Democrats from the Senate seat which was practically Kennedy family property for more than half a century. The second was provided by the Supreme Court, which has authorized unlimited campaign contributions from businesses in the name of freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Both wallops constitute a lesson on the limits on the power of the most powerful president in the world. Within his sphere, Obama has less leeway than Zapatero, Berlusconi or Sarkozy, just to name three very different examples. Nonetheless, the power that any of the three Europeans has is tiny compared with Obama’s power.
The U.S. president can do a lot - punish Wall Street banks, for example. But he cannot do everything: we will see if he is able to pass health care reform. And it remains to be seen what will happen with the mid-term elections, which occur this coming November, where punishing the ruling party tends to be the norm; in Obama’s case, this effect was felt in advance in Massachusetts in the form of a special election to fill the vacancy left by Ted Kennedy, whereby fortune has given him advanced notice which could allow him to correct his mistakes. The decision of the Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority, whose members serve for life, has also been a warning for a president who wants to make many changes; he should never forget that these judges, all of whom were appointed by his predecessors, except for one, Sonia Sotomayor, will have the ultimate and final say over the significant questions which effect the country. They decided the 2000 presidential election, and now they have decided to opt for a money-driven electoral democracy, which gives the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats.
Previous article![]( "Who Owns the Internet?")
