The Rehabilitation of Obama
Published in Capital
(Bulgaria) on 26 March 2010
by Vanya Eftimova and Ilin Stanev (link to
original)
What will follow the biggest social reform in the United States since the 1960s?
If you walk into a McDonald’s at this time next year, its menu will say how many calories there are in a Big Mac. From New York to Huntington, West Virginia (recently called the unhealthiest city in America), this will be one of the most visible changes in the daily lives of millions of Americans.
The health reform also marks Obama’s rehabilitation. Now, the president faces a bright future or two difficult years. The success may also give him new energy to pursue an active foreign policy. The course Obama’s administration will take after the exhausting victory is important, and not only for the U.S. During the debates over health care reform, the sanctions against Iran were held back, Iraq was almost forgotten, the Middle East peace process went nowhere and planned visits to U.S. allies abroad were canceled. The failure of Obama’s biggest domestic initiative would have made the president a weak world leader; his victory may mean a second term.
The forecasts for the rest of Obama’s term vary, but the determining factor will be whether the Democrats will maintain their majority in Congress in the upcoming November elections. Past experience has shown that reformist presidents usually lose their congressional majority. After Clinton’s ambitious health care plans failed miserably, the Democrats lost the 1994 elections for Congress. Clinton then focused on two activities: liberalization of the social system, which was something the Republicans, of course, liked; and small projects aimed at satisfying different social groups. At first, he scaled back the U.S. presence abroad, but increased it decisively after his reelection in 1996.
Of no less importance is the example of Ronald Reagan. In 1984, the legendary Republican signed into law the largest tax increase in American history since World War II as part of a budget deal to cut down the federal deficit. Sometimes, necessity leads to unexpected political decisions.
So Obama’s political trajectory can take different turns, depending on how the White House sees its prospects for success. It is almost certain that the next few months will see a serious shift in Obama’s domestic goals. Everything depends on Americans’ approval of the health care reform and on the performance of the labor market. The real changes in health care will not start until 2014, and now Obama will finally have to explain why the taxpayers should like the new law. Even the most favorable Obama polls show that less than 50 percent of Americans approve of the health care legislation.
With health care reform passed, the Democrats will try to move the debate to other issues, but this will not be easy. At the same time, the attacks by the Tea Party movement — a loose group of conservative Americans — may benefit the White House. The extreme attacks included threats against congressmen and insults that are unacceptable by American standards; they may prove counterproductive to the Republican Party’s cause. Indeed, if such unstable people oppose the health care law, there must be something good about it.
The problem of unemployment will not go away easily. The revival of the economy has thus far had no impact on unemployment, which is in the double digits. The administration’s economic measures can be described as successful: Not only were the financial institutions saved, but they even repaid the taxpayer’s money. But voters base their approval of the economy on the size of their salaries.
If these expectations do not materialize, Obama may reveal his reformist side. Most likely, a modified climate change legislation will pass with the approval of both parties, thus spurring investment in green energy. Plans for education reform also enjoy support from both Democrats and Republicans. The reform aims to make teachers more accountable for students’ achievement and, if passed, may revolutionize American high school education.
The health care victory may also untie Obama’s hands abroad. If the administration decides that the health care reform has squeezed out Obama’s energy for domestic activism, then diplomatic outreach abroad may increase. Victories abroad always sound good and do not directly impact the taxpayer’s pocket. However, it is almost certain that the Obama administration will not deal seriously with the Middle East peace process in the context of Israel’s recent announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem. Israel’s settlement activities, which are denounced by the entire international community, caused the first scandal rift between the two countries and showed that Tel Aviv is not ready for peace negotiations. Or perhaps Israel is trying to redirect Obama’s attention toward Iran. If Obama decides to deal with Iran, he will be able to mobilize public support. This will also mean that countries like Zimbabwe can expect to be left in peace.
At the same time, the White House may decide that too much attention on foreign policy harms the political health of the president. Considering high unemployment rates, the administration will not want to risk accusations that the president does not care about the problems of ordinary people or that he cares more about the rest of the world than America.
Obama may surprise us with a well-developed plan for the future. The painful passage of the health care bill fired up the imaginations of the pundits. Some say that the president has no plan at all and simply reacts to events. Others believe that Obama is very methodical and has long-term goals. For example, the health care legislation is not very different from the one Obama proposed during his presidential campaign; that is, the president manipulated Congress into accepting his own version. If the latter is true, then criticism that Obama is generous with words but not with actions is wrong. Until now, he has simply been measuring; from now on, he will do the cutting and sewing. The health care reform can also give Ahmadinejad and Putin a lesson in how Obama achieves his goals. In the words of Marc Lynch of George Washington University, the president is playing a “long game.” After he puts forward ambitious but unrealistic goals, he withdraws and waits for his opponents to get irritated and angry. When the opponents discredit themselves, Obama is able to materialize his goals.
The problem with this argument is that it is solely theoretical. But the fact is that, lately, there has been a change in the tone of the administration. Until recently, the message of the White House was: “Let’s all get along.” But in the past few months, the U.S. showed Russia that resetting has its costs, and the E.U. that Washington is not interested in high-level meetings. Google’s withdrawal from China illustrated that the U.S. still controls access to technology. Is this a change in U.S. foreign policy or simply a return to its traditional trajectory? The answer can be found by calling the White House at 202-456-1414.
If you walk into a McDonald’s at this time next year, its menu will say how many calories there are in a Big Mac. From New York to Huntington, West Virginia (recently called the unhealthiest city in America), this will be one of the most visible changes in the daily lives of millions of Americans.
The health reform also marks Obama’s rehabilitation. Now, the president faces a bright future or two difficult years. The success may also give him new energy to pursue an active foreign policy. The course Obama’s administration will take after the exhausting victory is important, and not only for the U.S. During the debates over health care reform, the sanctions against Iran were held back, Iraq was almost forgotten, the Middle East peace process went nowhere and planned visits to U.S. allies abroad were canceled. The failure of Obama’s biggest domestic initiative would have made the president a weak world leader; his victory may mean a second term.
The forecasts for the rest of Obama’s term vary, but the determining factor will be whether the Democrats will maintain their majority in Congress in the upcoming November elections. Past experience has shown that reformist presidents usually lose their congressional majority. After Clinton’s ambitious health care plans failed miserably, the Democrats lost the 1994 elections for Congress. Clinton then focused on two activities: liberalization of the social system, which was something the Republicans, of course, liked; and small projects aimed at satisfying different social groups. At first, he scaled back the U.S. presence abroad, but increased it decisively after his reelection in 1996.
Of no less importance is the example of Ronald Reagan. In 1984, the legendary Republican signed into law the largest tax increase in American history since World War II as part of a budget deal to cut down the federal deficit. Sometimes, necessity leads to unexpected political decisions.
So Obama’s political trajectory can take different turns, depending on how the White House sees its prospects for success. It is almost certain that the next few months will see a serious shift in Obama’s domestic goals. Everything depends on Americans’ approval of the health care reform and on the performance of the labor market. The real changes in health care will not start until 2014, and now Obama will finally have to explain why the taxpayers should like the new law. Even the most favorable Obama polls show that less than 50 percent of Americans approve of the health care legislation.
With health care reform passed, the Democrats will try to move the debate to other issues, but this will not be easy. At the same time, the attacks by the Tea Party movement — a loose group of conservative Americans — may benefit the White House. The extreme attacks included threats against congressmen and insults that are unacceptable by American standards; they may prove counterproductive to the Republican Party’s cause. Indeed, if such unstable people oppose the health care law, there must be something good about it.
The problem of unemployment will not go away easily. The revival of the economy has thus far had no impact on unemployment, which is in the double digits. The administration’s economic measures can be described as successful: Not only were the financial institutions saved, but they even repaid the taxpayer’s money. But voters base their approval of the economy on the size of their salaries.
If these expectations do not materialize, Obama may reveal his reformist side. Most likely, a modified climate change legislation will pass with the approval of both parties, thus spurring investment in green energy. Plans for education reform also enjoy support from both Democrats and Republicans. The reform aims to make teachers more accountable for students’ achievement and, if passed, may revolutionize American high school education.
The health care victory may also untie Obama’s hands abroad. If the administration decides that the health care reform has squeezed out Obama’s energy for domestic activism, then diplomatic outreach abroad may increase. Victories abroad always sound good and do not directly impact the taxpayer’s pocket. However, it is almost certain that the Obama administration will not deal seriously with the Middle East peace process in the context of Israel’s recent announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem. Israel’s settlement activities, which are denounced by the entire international community, caused the first scandal rift between the two countries and showed that Tel Aviv is not ready for peace negotiations. Or perhaps Israel is trying to redirect Obama’s attention toward Iran. If Obama decides to deal with Iran, he will be able to mobilize public support. This will also mean that countries like Zimbabwe can expect to be left in peace.
At the same time, the White House may decide that too much attention on foreign policy harms the political health of the president. Considering high unemployment rates, the administration will not want to risk accusations that the president does not care about the problems of ordinary people or that he cares more about the rest of the world than America.
Obama may surprise us with a well-developed plan for the future. The painful passage of the health care bill fired up the imaginations of the pundits. Some say that the president has no plan at all and simply reacts to events. Others believe that Obama is very methodical and has long-term goals. For example, the health care legislation is not very different from the one Obama proposed during his presidential campaign; that is, the president manipulated Congress into accepting his own version. If the latter is true, then criticism that Obama is generous with words but not with actions is wrong. Until now, he has simply been measuring; from now on, he will do the cutting and sewing. The health care reform can also give Ahmadinejad and Putin a lesson in how Obama achieves his goals. In the words of Marc Lynch of George Washington University, the president is playing a “long game.” After he puts forward ambitious but unrealistic goals, he withdraws and waits for his opponents to get irritated and angry. When the opponents discredit themselves, Obama is able to materialize his goals.
The problem with this argument is that it is solely theoretical. But the fact is that, lately, there has been a change in the tone of the administration. Until recently, the message of the White House was: “Let’s all get along.” But in the past few months, the U.S. showed Russia that resetting has its costs, and the E.U. that Washington is not interested in high-level meetings. Google’s withdrawal from China illustrated that the U.S. still controls access to technology. Is this a change in U.S. foreign policy or simply a return to its traditional trajectory? The answer can be found by calling the White House at 202-456-1414.