Edited by Kyrstie Lane
Obama: Gulliver’s Troubles, Gulliver Unbound
The expression “Gulliver’s Troubles” is attributed to Stanley Hoffman; it is the title of one of his books concerning U.S. foreign policy that dates back to 1968. During that time, limits to U.S. power were already being discussed, but the expression can be used today to evoke the power and paralysis of the American president.
Obama does not seem to be able to get a majority in Congress in order to pass laws that somewhat control the sale of firearms. Following the Newtown massacre, he wants to pass a law to strengthen background checks for those who purchase firearms. The law seeks to better verify whether or not the buyer has a criminal record or psychiatric problems. Obama recently affirmed that 90 percent of Americans support the strengthening of these background checks.
It is a step in the right direction that is very far from a total ban on handguns, which are so often used in killings in the U.S. Nevertheless, the bill, which is extremely weak, has provoked a strong opposition, even among Democrats, and will probably not pass Congress.
The president of the United States, often touted as the most powerful man in the world, cannot pass a common sense measure that is supported by the vast majority of Americans. There is clearly a structural problem in the functioning of American democracy. Lobbies, notably the National Rifle Association, oppose any attempt to regulate arms sales. As officials depend on lobbies to be elected, they follow their recommendations even when their constituents have a different opinion. A troubled Gulliver is condemned to political paralysis.
Similarly, Obama had promised to close Guantanamo and never followed through. There also he encountered strong opposition, both diplomatic and judicial. Certainly, one might think that he did not really fight to close it and that he could have, as they say in political science, spent a little more of his “political capital” to advance the case, but it remains true that the president was not alone. In the case of Guantanamo, he did not have strong public support, and it was not clear that he really needed to move forward on a case concerning civil liberties.
Moreover, the American president has assumed control over the right to life or death concerning those that U.S. intelligence considers suspects in the fight against terrorism. Obama has a kill list of these suspects and decides whom to kill by drone attack. He does not consult the courts and Congress does not have a say. The president is seen as being omnipotent in one field and powerless in another. In one case, the executive power ignores all of the other powers and suffers no political consequences, while in the other case the opposition totally paralyzes it on the political level. No checks and balances to stop the targeted killings, but only obstacles and no balance to fight against school shootings.
The power of lobbies largely explains these different situations as well as various aspects of U.S. foreign policy. However, beyond lobbies as such, it is necessary to note the lines of power in American society, what the American sociologist C. Wright Mills calls “The Power Elite.” There was an institutional quasi-consensus when bin Laden was assassinated, and no lobby or important political group disapproved of it, while on firearms or the deficit debate there are strong opposing views. The president only has the power that the interplay of political and economic forces lets him have. He cannot impede the military-industrial complex or even win against the NRA but he can attempt to destroy civil liberties and organize attacks, the legality of which are called into question by American Civil Liberties Union legal experts.
Stanley Hoffman published another work in 2004 bearing the title “Gulliver Unbound.” It is a book of interviews concerning the foreign policy of Bush that was first published in French. There again, between these two titles, one can discern the vacillation between the two poles of power for the American president, Obama or anyone else. From “Gulliver’s Troubles” to “Gulliver Unbound” there is only one small difference: Obama-Gulliver can be unleashed when he gives the order to kill a suspect in Yemen and, on the same day, find himself entangled when he tries to pass a law restricting access to firearms. Progressives may prefer the opposite: that he be entangled by the laws and the defenders of civil liberties but unleashed in the regulation of arms sales and the closure of Guantanamo. The power elite adapt better to the opposite of what succeeds on the electoral level.
Obama does not seem to be able to get a majority in Congress in order to pass laws that somewhat control the sale of firearms. Following the Newtown massacre, he wants to pass a law to strengthen background checks for those who purchase firearms. The law seeks to better verify whether or not the buyer has a criminal record or psychiatric problems. Obama recently affirmed that 90 percent of Americans support the strengthening of these background checks.
It is a step in the right direction that is very far from a total ban on handguns, which are so often used in killings in the U.S. Nevertheless, the bill, which is extremely weak, has provoked a strong opposition, even among Democrats, and will probably not pass Congress.
The president of the United States, often touted as the most powerful man in the world, cannot pass a common sense measure that is supported by the vast majority of Americans. There is clearly a structural problem in the functioning of American democracy. Lobbies, notably the National Rifle Association, oppose any attempt to regulate arms sales. As officials depend on lobbies to be elected, they follow their recommendations even when their constituents have a different opinion. A troubled Gulliver is condemned to political paralysis.
Similarly, Obama had promised to close Guantanamo and never followed through. There also he encountered strong opposition, both diplomatic and judicial. Certainly, one might think that he did not really fight to close it and that he could have, as they say in political science, spent a little more of his “political capital” to advance the case, but it remains true that the president was not alone. In the case of Guantanamo, he did not have strong public support, and it was not clear that he really needed to move forward on a case concerning civil liberties.
Moreover, the American president has assumed control over the right to life or death concerning those that U.S. intelligence considers suspects in the fight against terrorism. Obama has a kill list of these suspects and decides whom to kill by drone attack. He does not consult the courts and Congress does not have a say. The president is seen as being omnipotent in one field and powerless in another. In one case, the executive power ignores all of the other powers and suffers no political consequences, while in the other case the opposition totally paralyzes it on the political level. No checks and balances to stop the targeted killings, but only obstacles and no balance to fight against school shootings.
The power of lobbies largely explains these different situations as well as various aspects of U.S. foreign policy. However, beyond lobbies as such, it is necessary to note the lines of power in American society, what the American sociologist C. Wright Mills calls “The Power Elite.” There was an institutional quasi-consensus when bin Laden was assassinated, and no lobby or important political group disapproved of it, while on firearms or the deficit debate there are strong opposing views. The president only has the power that the interplay of political and economic forces lets him have. He cannot impede the military-industrial complex or even win against the NRA but he can attempt to destroy civil liberties and organize attacks, the legality of which are called into question by American Civil Liberties Union legal experts.
Stanley Hoffman published another work in 2004 bearing the title “Gulliver Unbound.” It is a book of interviews concerning the foreign policy of Bush that was first published in French. There again, between these two titles, one can discern the vacillation between the two poles of power for the American president, Obama or anyone else. From “Gulliver’s Troubles” to “Gulliver Unbound” there is only one small difference: Obama-Gulliver can be unleashed when he gives the order to kill a suspect in Yemen and, on the same day, find himself entangled when he tries to pass a law restricting access to firearms. Progressives may prefer the opposite: that he be entangled by the laws and the defenders of civil liberties but unleashed in the regulation of arms sales and the closure of Guantanamo. The power elite adapt better to the opposite of what succeeds on the electoral level.