Obama: The Doubtful
The president of the United States has imposed a prudent and moderate style of governing that sacrifices personal leadership for the good of the general consensus.
Recently confronting two of the greatest challenges in his administration — the war in Afghanistan and the weight of the debt — Obama has opted for the same solution: the middle point, the conciliation of the concerned parties, moderation and prudence. A president who was elected under the slogan of change and who was expected to be a transformer because of his origins and his circumstances has definitively consolidated a presidential style in which his personal leadership is diluted for the benefit of consensus.
In the case of Afghanistan, Obama could have chosen an accelerated retreat, as the left was asking him to do, or an extension of the military presence, as the war hawks wanted. In place of these options, he preferred a gradual exit, a middle point between both alternatives. In the difficult negotiations over the debt, he has met with Senate leaders from both parties and asked for more effort to reach an agreement, without expressing his own preferences or demanding points that couldn’t be ceded.
With the exception of the death of Osama bin Laden — a moment when he had to act with audacity in the face of numerous evident risks — this has been Obama’s style in most of his previous great decisions.
He was able to pass the health care reforms by renouncing a public system of patient care. He signed the financial reforms without including sanctions for those banks that had pushed the economy to the edge of a cliff. He neither backed nor removed the tax reductions inherited from George W. Bush: He even extended them by two years. He believes that homosexuals have “the same rights” as the rest of Americans, but he does not openly support gay marriage.
In foreign affairs, the balance is similar. Obama eliminated the anti-missile shield, designed by his predecessor, in Eastern Europe, but he substituted it for a more modest shield that still irritates Russia. He invited the Dalai Lama to the White House, but he made him enter through the back door so that the photographers couldn’t capture the moment. He visited Europe but didn’t talk about Europe as a political and economic entity. He supports the democratization movements in the Arab world but maintains alliances with those anti-democratic regimes that still remain standing.
This style of presidency has the virtue of attempting to govern from the center, where the majority of its citizens are located. In relation to his plan for a retreat from Afghanistan, Obama himself has declared, “Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America overextended, confronting every evil that can be found abroad. We must chart a more centered course.” All politicians promise to govern for the majority of their constituents, but few are actually true to their word. At the cost of irritating his own followers, Obama has often given satisfaction to those who didn’t even vote for him.
But this model also supposes a reduction in personal leadership. In a nation traditionally accustomed to strong presidents who impose their authority and their own ways of doing things, Obama is a president exceptionally inclined toward debate, questions, reflection and reaching compromises. In spite of the grand role that Dick Cheney played in the past, George W. Bush was the undeniable author of the War on Terror. The health care reform is Obama’s handiwork, but before signing it into law he held an unprecedented debate between both parties and included some proposals that came out of it.
This debate was held parliamentary-style, and much of the time Obama governs as if he directed a parliament. Almost as if, in place of the enormous power given to the president of the American political system, he was the prime minister of a fragile European coalition.
There is still time left for the public to sanction this style of presidency, and there will still be opportunities over these coming months for Obama to prove his leadership. However, it is difficult for his style to change much. Obama is who he is; he was educated how he was educated. He grew up in universities and social groups that reward association and group work, so he did not develop a combative character during his years of local and party politics. From there emerged a man who likes a complicated method of decision making and a civilized and timid use of power. Whether this will serve to re-elect him is another matter.
Recently confronting two of the greatest challenges in his administration — the war in Afghanistan and the weight of the debt — Obama has opted for the same solution: the middle point, the conciliation of the concerned parties, moderation and prudence. A president who was elected under the slogan of change and who was expected to be a transformer because of his origins and his circumstances has definitively consolidated a presidential style in which his personal leadership is diluted for the benefit of consensus.
In the case of Afghanistan, Obama could have chosen an accelerated retreat, as the left was asking him to do, or an extension of the military presence, as the war hawks wanted. In place of these options, he preferred a gradual exit, a middle point between both alternatives. In the difficult negotiations over the debt, he has met with Senate leaders from both parties and asked for more effort to reach an agreement, without expressing his own preferences or demanding points that couldn’t be ceded.
With the exception of the death of Osama bin Laden — a moment when he had to act with audacity in the face of numerous evident risks — this has been Obama’s style in most of his previous great decisions.
He was able to pass the health care reforms by renouncing a public system of patient care. He signed the financial reforms without including sanctions for those banks that had pushed the economy to the edge of a cliff. He neither backed nor removed the tax reductions inherited from George W. Bush: He even extended them by two years. He believes that homosexuals have “the same rights” as the rest of Americans, but he does not openly support gay marriage.
In foreign affairs, the balance is similar. Obama eliminated the anti-missile shield, designed by his predecessor, in Eastern Europe, but he substituted it for a more modest shield that still irritates Russia. He invited the Dalai Lama to the White House, but he made him enter through the back door so that the photographers couldn’t capture the moment. He visited Europe but didn’t talk about Europe as a political and economic entity. He supports the democratization movements in the Arab world but maintains alliances with those anti-democratic regimes that still remain standing.
This style of presidency has the virtue of attempting to govern from the center, where the majority of its citizens are located. In relation to his plan for a retreat from Afghanistan, Obama himself has declared, “Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America overextended, confronting every evil that can be found abroad. We must chart a more centered course.” All politicians promise to govern for the majority of their constituents, but few are actually true to their word. At the cost of irritating his own followers, Obama has often given satisfaction to those who didn’t even vote for him.
But this model also supposes a reduction in personal leadership. In a nation traditionally accustomed to strong presidents who impose their authority and their own ways of doing things, Obama is a president exceptionally inclined toward debate, questions, reflection and reaching compromises. In spite of the grand role that Dick Cheney played in the past, George W. Bush was the undeniable author of the War on Terror. The health care reform is Obama’s handiwork, but before signing it into law he held an unprecedented debate between both parties and included some proposals that came out of it.
This debate was held parliamentary-style, and much of the time Obama governs as if he directed a parliament. Almost as if, in place of the enormous power given to the president of the American political system, he was the prime minister of a fragile European coalition.
There is still time left for the public to sanction this style of presidency, and there will still be opportunities over these coming months for Obama to prove his leadership. However, it is difficult for his style to change much. Obama is who he is; he was educated how he was educated. He grew up in universities and social groups that reward association and group work, so he did not develop a combative character during his years of local and party politics. From there emerged a man who likes a complicated method of decision making and a civilized and timid use of power. Whether this will serve to re-elect him is another matter.