Edited by Robin Silberman
Farewell to Dreams of “Obamania”
Barack Obama, upon arriving at the White House a year ago, brought unprecedented hope not only to America, but also to the rest of the world. After the Bush years, in the eyes of the world the first black U.S. president was a sign of rupture. To describe this infatuation, the term "Obamania" became all the rage. A year later, this crazy hope has been replaced by a certain disappointment, as can be seen in his popularity ratings, which dropped from 70 percent in January 2009 to 50 percent. A sort of doubt regarding his ability to reinvent America, which was originally attributed to him, has been spreading, not only in his own country but also in Europe, even possibly the Middle East and other regions of the globe.
For many, this disappointment is linked to the gap that exists between the U.S. president’s mastering of speeches that can generate hope of a better world and the difficulty to act in the face of "the thickness of the world," according to a concept developed by the political scientist François Heisbourg. A particularly tough problem since America is no longer the post-Cold War super power but, rather, only the strongest power in a multi-polar world shared with other powers such as China, India and Brazil. This forces Barack Obama to place the United States in a position of "relative power."
This problem is rendered even more difficult by the American political system's being based on the balance of power, which requires that any law - especially one that may lead to a significant reform - be negotiated by the executive with Congress, even when the president has the majority in both chambers.
Adding more difficulty to his governance, Barack Obama has chosen to act through consensus, by calling upon the "bipartisan spirit" of Republicans and Democrats. This method does have the advantage, in the eyes of U.S public opinion, of putting the spotlight on the radicalism of a fraction of the opposition, but it also carries the risk of leading to compromises that are unsatisfactory for the most fervent partisans of Barack Obama.
However, despite the feeling of doubt, few American presidents can claim to have brought about so much change over such a short period of time. The change in course of action is so much more remarkable because it comes about in the middle of an economic recession without precedent since the great depression of the 1930s.
In front of the French Association of the Diplomatic Press, Hubert Védrine refused to make a speedy judgment on Barack Obama’s presidency. What was the outcome of Roosevelt’s presidency, ten months after his taking office, asked the former Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nothing! What about Reagan’s?
For Obama, 2009 ended on a “historical” success in the United States, against opponents of his plan for health care reform. The Senate finally adopted a bill on health that must still be aligned with the one prepared by the House of Representatives. True, after many a compromise, we are far from electoral promises, but Obama is about to succeed in reforming medical protection for the first time since the 1965 creation of Medicare by President Johnson (an insurance for people aged 65 or over, and those suffering from acute renal deficiency) and Medicaid (for the most indigent). Bill Clinton had not succeeded in reforming the health care system during his presidency in the 1990s, neither at the start nor at the end of his double-mandate.
On the international scene, Barack Obama has, in 11 months, only set the stage, but has without a doubt broken away from the Bush years and neo-conservatism. The concept of “preemptive” war that had given an ideological coating to the U.S to start its military adventure against Saddam Hussein in Iraq has, with Obama, been relegated to the bins of history.
Similarly, his Cairo speech last June not only marked a complete turning point from the policies of his predecessor George W. Bush, but it also participated in the start of reconciliation between the United States and the Arab-Muslim world. In Iran, his policy of the "helping hand" considerably embarrassed the regime who, by pursuing its primal anti-U.S. attitude, played the nationalist card. This proves more difficult today.
Not all challenges have been overcome, however. On the international front, did Obama go too far or not far enough with ally Israel, by demanding the halt of Israeli colonies in the West Bank? In that region, the hope brought by Obama has not completely vanished. “The life-jacket, it’s him or no one else, today or never,” writes Elie Barnavi, former Israeli ambassador to France, in his latest book. Will additional troops and the announcement of a set date to retreat be enough to stabilize Afghanistan?
Domestically, despite signs of recovery, the U.S. president remains confronted with the matter of unemployment and the explosion of public debt. Most of all, 2009 was the last year during which Barack Obama could blame it all - on both the domestic and international fronts - on the disastrous record of his predecessor. 2010 looks like a hazardous year for Barack Obama. And with each setback, he will be judged responsible by American public opinion. By saying “farewell to Obamania” in 2009, America has returned to face tough realities and so has the rest of the world.
For many, this disappointment is linked to the gap that exists between the U.S. president’s mastering of speeches that can generate hope of a better world and the difficulty to act in the face of "the thickness of the world," according to a concept developed by the political scientist François Heisbourg. A particularly tough problem since America is no longer the post-Cold War super power but, rather, only the strongest power in a multi-polar world shared with other powers such as China, India and Brazil. This forces Barack Obama to place the United States in a position of "relative power."
This problem is rendered even more difficult by the American political system's being based on the balance of power, which requires that any law - especially one that may lead to a significant reform - be negotiated by the executive with Congress, even when the president has the majority in both chambers.
Adding more difficulty to his governance, Barack Obama has chosen to act through consensus, by calling upon the "bipartisan spirit" of Republicans and Democrats. This method does have the advantage, in the eyes of U.S public opinion, of putting the spotlight on the radicalism of a fraction of the opposition, but it also carries the risk of leading to compromises that are unsatisfactory for the most fervent partisans of Barack Obama.
However, despite the feeling of doubt, few American presidents can claim to have brought about so much change over such a short period of time. The change in course of action is so much more remarkable because it comes about in the middle of an economic recession without precedent since the great depression of the 1930s.
In front of the French Association of the Diplomatic Press, Hubert Védrine refused to make a speedy judgment on Barack Obama’s presidency. What was the outcome of Roosevelt’s presidency, ten months after his taking office, asked the former Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nothing! What about Reagan’s?
For Obama, 2009 ended on a “historical” success in the United States, against opponents of his plan for health care reform. The Senate finally adopted a bill on health that must still be aligned with the one prepared by the House of Representatives. True, after many a compromise, we are far from electoral promises, but Obama is about to succeed in reforming medical protection for the first time since the 1965 creation of Medicare by President Johnson (an insurance for people aged 65 or over, and those suffering from acute renal deficiency) and Medicaid (for the most indigent). Bill Clinton had not succeeded in reforming the health care system during his presidency in the 1990s, neither at the start nor at the end of his double-mandate.
On the international scene, Barack Obama has, in 11 months, only set the stage, but has without a doubt broken away from the Bush years and neo-conservatism. The concept of “preemptive” war that had given an ideological coating to the U.S to start its military adventure against Saddam Hussein in Iraq has, with Obama, been relegated to the bins of history.
Similarly, his Cairo speech last June not only marked a complete turning point from the policies of his predecessor George W. Bush, but it also participated in the start of reconciliation between the United States and the Arab-Muslim world. In Iran, his policy of the "helping hand" considerably embarrassed the regime who, by pursuing its primal anti-U.S. attitude, played the nationalist card. This proves more difficult today.
Not all challenges have been overcome, however. On the international front, did Obama go too far or not far enough with ally Israel, by demanding the halt of Israeli colonies in the West Bank? In that region, the hope brought by Obama has not completely vanished. “The life-jacket, it’s him or no one else, today or never,” writes Elie Barnavi, former Israeli ambassador to France, in his latest book. Will additional troops and the announcement of a set date to retreat be enough to stabilize Afghanistan?
Domestically, despite signs of recovery, the U.S. president remains confronted with the matter of unemployment and the explosion of public debt. Most of all, 2009 was the last year during which Barack Obama could blame it all - on both the domestic and international fronts - on the disastrous record of his predecessor. 2010 looks like a hazardous year for Barack Obama. And with each setback, he will be judged responsible by American public opinion. By saying “farewell to Obamania” in 2009, America has returned to face tough realities and so has the rest of the world.