Barack Obama, or, the Virtues of Centrism
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 14 December 2010
by Le Monde editoral (link to original)
(France) on 14 December 2010
by Le Monde editoral (link to original)
Translated from
by Erin Summers.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
Compromise or treason? In politics, one often has to choose between the ideals embodied in the campaign program and the arduous synthesis that is required on a day to day basis.
Barack Obama has decided: It was assumed that the public interest – that is, the interest of a majority of Americans – would require Obama to give in to the Republicans, even on such an explosive topic as the taxation of the wealthy. And he did just that. The left-wing Democrats are furious, but the president was right.
Despite the uproar from some elected Democrats, on Monday evening, Dec. 13, the Senate voted on the budgetary compromise that was reached between the White House and the Republicans. It still needs to be passed in the House of Representatives.
The first political lesson from this episode: The Republicans, who emerged in strong standing after the November elections, are making their presence known, even before the new session of Congress reconvenes in January. The second lesson: Mr. Obama has proved his ability to govern with a legislative body that is dominated by his opponents, the Republicans.
The battle is over the two-year renewal of the reduction in income taxes that was passed under George W. Bush in 2003 and which is set to expire on Jan. 1, 2011. Mr. Obama had sworn not to extend this lower income tax rate for the “rich,” that is to say, on households earning a yearly income of more than $250,000.
Under pressure from the Republicans, Mr. Obama broke his promise. The two-year reprieve from income tax increases will apply to everyone, including the “rich.” Worse than that, the Democratic president accepted an estate tax rate revision, which will benefit the most fortunate of its fellow citizens – some 6,400 families within the highest income bracket.
The question is: What did Mr. Obama gain in return for the concessions he made to the Republicans? A lot, it appears.
First, an additional thirteen months of benefits for the long-time unemployed; next, a series of fiscal adjustments for small businesses; assistance for less fortunate students; the preservation of many anti-poverty programs; and finally, the commitment to review this “fiscal package” in two years.
For the majority of commentators, this bill favors the middle class, who, for the most part, voted against the Democrats during the mid-term elections.
This bill also represents a mini-stimulus plan to provide a boost at a time when the United States is struggling to encourage activity. It will be a good omen for Mr. Obama’s re-election if, between now and 2012, this bill, which will slightly increase the federal deficit, helps to lower the current unemployment rate from 9 percent to 7.5 percent.
The left-wing Democrats are furious. They are threatening to deliver another candidate to oppose Mr. Obama in 2012. They talk of “treason.” In his typical professorial style, the president rejected those comments, denouncing purism and naïve idealism, and then stated this historical truth: “This country was founded on compromise.” May this lesson also resonate in Paris …
Barack Obama has decided: It was assumed that the public interest – that is, the interest of a majority of Americans – would require Obama to give in to the Republicans, even on such an explosive topic as the taxation of the wealthy. And he did just that. The left-wing Democrats are furious, but the president was right.
Despite the uproar from some elected Democrats, on Monday evening, Dec. 13, the Senate voted on the budgetary compromise that was reached between the White House and the Republicans. It still needs to be passed in the House of Representatives.
The first political lesson from this episode: The Republicans, who emerged in strong standing after the November elections, are making their presence known, even before the new session of Congress reconvenes in January. The second lesson: Mr. Obama has proved his ability to govern with a legislative body that is dominated by his opponents, the Republicans.
The battle is over the two-year renewal of the reduction in income taxes that was passed under George W. Bush in 2003 and which is set to expire on Jan. 1, 2011. Mr. Obama had sworn not to extend this lower income tax rate for the “rich,” that is to say, on households earning a yearly income of more than $250,000.
Under pressure from the Republicans, Mr. Obama broke his promise. The two-year reprieve from income tax increases will apply to everyone, including the “rich.” Worse than that, the Democratic president accepted an estate tax rate revision, which will benefit the most fortunate of its fellow citizens – some 6,400 families within the highest income bracket.
The question is: What did Mr. Obama gain in return for the concessions he made to the Republicans? A lot, it appears.
First, an additional thirteen months of benefits for the long-time unemployed; next, a series of fiscal adjustments for small businesses; assistance for less fortunate students; the preservation of many anti-poverty programs; and finally, the commitment to review this “fiscal package” in two years.
For the majority of commentators, this bill favors the middle class, who, for the most part, voted against the Democrats during the mid-term elections.
This bill also represents a mini-stimulus plan to provide a boost at a time when the United States is struggling to encourage activity. It will be a good omen for Mr. Obama’s re-election if, between now and 2012, this bill, which will slightly increase the federal deficit, helps to lower the current unemployment rate from 9 percent to 7.5 percent.
The left-wing Democrats are furious. They are threatening to deliver another candidate to oppose Mr. Obama in 2012. They talk of “treason.” In his typical professorial style, the president rejected those comments, denouncing purism and naïve idealism, and then stated this historical truth: “This country was founded on compromise.” May this lesson also resonate in Paris …