Edited by Laura Berlinsky-Schine
Heads or Tails? The Coin’s in the Air
When Barack Obama assumed the presidency a year ago, the Washington Post/ABC News poll indicated that only 19 percent of the people of the United States thought that the country was headed in the right direction. Today, the percentage of optimists is 37 percent, and, even though Obama continues to enjoy a 53 percent approval rating, only 49 percent of independent voters approve of the way he’s carried out his duties. Based on this information, the conclusion is obvious: citizens are tied in their evaluation of the way in which Obama has done his job during this first year.
In January 2009, when the country's economy floundered in a profound crisis in plain view of the astonished administration of George W. Bush, and the paradigm of capitalist government—forged so ideologically by Ronald Reagan—seemed to crumble, United States citizens vote for Obama because they believe in his promise of change.
Obama, in his turn, interprets the message of change as though he were given permission to head left-of-center, and begins to transform the way in which the Executive branch exercises its leadership inside and outside the country’s borders. He has outlined his proposal for change in a handful of brilliant speeches through which he has clarified his vision of such a transformation and the path that he plans to follow.
The horrible state of the economy poses a formidable challenge to Obama and his team, but they see it as a magnificent opportunity to initiate projects that have a strong social content such as, for example, an overhaul of the health care system that would benefit millions of people who, today, receive no medical attention.
A year later, weighed down by unemployment and an economic recovery that hasn’t arrived, the people of the country are speaking out against the status quo and against change. And nothing exemplifies this disenchantment better than the idea of health care reform. Today, the majority of people are opposed to such reform and they think that the president should focus his efforts exclusively on finding a way to reactivate the economy and bring unemployment down.
That said, don’t imagine that the disenchantment with Obama is very widespread. The verdict on his first year as president is mixed, and curiously, the two prevailing opinions concerning this administration’s performance use the same examples to come to opposite conclusions. That is to say, that which for some is seen as a success for the administration is for others seen as failure.
Consider, for example, the order to send 30,000 more North American troops to fight in Afghanistan—a decision applauded by experts in military strategy as necessary and just—has been criticized by those who think that it’s a grave error to send so many young people to the slaughterhouse in a war that can’t help but end badly.
The same dichotomy arises when we talk about the 787 billion dollars that Obama got from Congress in order to stimulate the economy. For some, this initiative helped Obama assure that the effects of the economic recession on the population weren’t as deep as they might have been, and that the rise in unemployment was slowed a bit. For others, it was a populist measure that did little, increased the doubts of the public and got the government involved in issues that it should have nothing to do with.
Where foreign policy is concerned, perceptions are even more pronounced. On the one hand are those who maintain that, in only one year, Obama has managed to improve the image of the United States in the world and he has reduced tensions with Russia, China and the countries of the Middle East. On the other hand, there are those who can’t forgive him for criticizing the arbitrary actions of the US in the recent past and for doubting the notion of American exceptionalism.
The prudent thing would be to remember that opinion on his management ability is divided, the presidential period for which Obama has been elected lasts for four years and, in politics, three years is an eternity, for better or for worse.
In January 2009, when the country's economy floundered in a profound crisis in plain view of the astonished administration of George W. Bush, and the paradigm of capitalist government—forged so ideologically by Ronald Reagan—seemed to crumble, United States citizens vote for Obama because they believe in his promise of change.
Obama, in his turn, interprets the message of change as though he were given permission to head left-of-center, and begins to transform the way in which the Executive branch exercises its leadership inside and outside the country’s borders. He has outlined his proposal for change in a handful of brilliant speeches through which he has clarified his vision of such a transformation and the path that he plans to follow.
The horrible state of the economy poses a formidable challenge to Obama and his team, but they see it as a magnificent opportunity to initiate projects that have a strong social content such as, for example, an overhaul of the health care system that would benefit millions of people who, today, receive no medical attention.
A year later, weighed down by unemployment and an economic recovery that hasn’t arrived, the people of the country are speaking out against the status quo and against change. And nothing exemplifies this disenchantment better than the idea of health care reform. Today, the majority of people are opposed to such reform and they think that the president should focus his efforts exclusively on finding a way to reactivate the economy and bring unemployment down.
That said, don’t imagine that the disenchantment with Obama is very widespread. The verdict on his first year as president is mixed, and curiously, the two prevailing opinions concerning this administration’s performance use the same examples to come to opposite conclusions. That is to say, that which for some is seen as a success for the administration is for others seen as failure.
Consider, for example, the order to send 30,000 more North American troops to fight in Afghanistan—a decision applauded by experts in military strategy as necessary and just—has been criticized by those who think that it’s a grave error to send so many young people to the slaughterhouse in a war that can’t help but end badly.
The same dichotomy arises when we talk about the 787 billion dollars that Obama got from Congress in order to stimulate the economy. For some, this initiative helped Obama assure that the effects of the economic recession on the population weren’t as deep as they might have been, and that the rise in unemployment was slowed a bit. For others, it was a populist measure that did little, increased the doubts of the public and got the government involved in issues that it should have nothing to do with.
Where foreign policy is concerned, perceptions are even more pronounced. On the one hand are those who maintain that, in only one year, Obama has managed to improve the image of the United States in the world and he has reduced tensions with Russia, China and the countries of the Middle East. On the other hand, there are those who can’t forgive him for criticizing the arbitrary actions of the US in the recent past and for doubting the notion of American exceptionalism.
The prudent thing would be to remember that opinion on his management ability is divided, the presidential period for which Obama has been elected lasts for four years and, in politics, three years is an eternity, for better or for worse.
Previous article![]( "Haiti is in America")
