Barack Obama Between Appearance and Reality

In the far off times since Obama’s January 20th inauguration, something magical still inheres in the “change” promised to reinvent America. Making appearances and giving speeches sufficed to make headlines – most of which were exclusively positive. The new president aimed at breaking away from his predecessor George W. Bush and symbolically outlining the promised change: Guantanamo will be closed, torture banished; he wants to fight the economic crisis with a stimulus package of unprecedented dimensions, withdraw from Iraq and revive peace negotiations in the Middle East. Back then, his words seemed to be enough to prove actions.

And the public did not miss out on entertaining news either. It all began with the Inauguration galas and analysis of the First Lady’s fashion choices. For weeks, the nation was fascinated by the search for the right dog for the White House. This was followed by the creation of a vegetable garden – an action that incorporated several messages, from the conservative love for agriculture, to the call for a healthy diet, to the ever-growing eco-trend. Four trips abroad, the speech to the Muslim world in Cairo and his appeal for nuclear disarmament when visiting Moscow all underline the president’s global demand for leadership.

Thanks to his travels and initiatives, the world perceives Obama as a renovator, and Americas’ image abroad is improving. However, he is far from being able to consistently pursue his global political concerns. By now, it is obvious: domestic politics are almost entirely engrossing this president. Little time remains for international affairs, which appear to be only adornments to his main work.

In America, the novelty has worn off. Little has changed about the orchestration and rhetorically filled speeches that reconcile pathos with pragmatism. But now, one can also see the burden and responsibility he is carrying. Phrases and actions have consequences. When he speaks, his comments are being examined for hidden ambiguity. Groups of lobbyists defend their interests. Sometimes, words are enough to change the battle plans during the search for majorities in Congress – not always in the president’s favor.

Of course it is much worse if his strategy fails to work altogether. That is what is happening to Obama with his main issue, the fight against recession. The outcome will determine his re-election in 2012 more than anything else. He used the entire weight and influence of his election victory (and his relations with Republicans from his previous four years as senator) trying to gain a large majority for organizing the so-called stimulus. In the end, he got an economic stimulus package with value that leaves some awestruck and others to shiver over the amount of debt: an additional $787 billion for infrastructure, financial aid for individual states that suffer from decreasing tax revenues, education and new forms of energy.

But the votes for this package came almost exclusively from Democrats. In the end, all but three Republicans in the Senate opposed the package. They do not want to miss the chance to use the stimulus package as a main point of criticism during the congressional election in November 2010, and the presidential election in 2012, if the economy does not recover as quickly as hoped for. They want to use the stimulus to prove that there is a world of difference between “Socialist” Democrats who turn the government into the driving force of the economy and squander taxpayers’ money, and frugal Republicans who rely on market forces.

The outcome of this bet remains unclear. For now, the conservatives have the upper hand. In June, the unemployment rate rose to 9.5 percent – much more than the eight percent that had been predicted at the beginning of the year for mid-2009. It looks like it will even rise above 10 percent this year. In particularly affected areas such as Michigan, which is also suffering from the collapse of the automobile industry, over 14 percent are unemployed. Adding citizens who do not report their unemployment or that only work part-time, although they would much rather have a full-time job, the unemployment rate in some states is as high as 20 percent, according to a study by the Department of Labor. At least GM and Chrysler put their insolvency proceedings behind them faster than expected. Time will tell if they have been permanently saved.

Obama travels frequently to these troubled areas to keep hope alive. On Tuesday in Warren, Michigan, he openly addressed the predominant atmosphere. Although he did not cause the recession – it is the inheritance of the Bush years – Obama is judged based upon his ability to overcome it. In this regard, this is now his economic crisis. “That’s fine. Give it to me,” he called out to the citizens of Warren.

It is quite possible that he will triumph in the end. The stimulus needs time to take hold. When the boom comes, the job market will see it last. As of now, only a small fraction of the money has been disbursed. Infrastructure projects have to be planned and approved before breaking ground. Only 25 percent of this money will flow in 2009, 50 percent in 2010, and the last 25 percent in the first half of 2011. The package is not meant to spark a brief flash in the pan, but to work on medium-–but of course in time for Obama’s reelection campaign. He has made his advisers visibly nervous as the approval ratings of his economic policies fell from 62 percent in May to 49 percent in a key state like Ohio.

Obama can be happy with his overall popularity rate. Shortly after taking office, he registered between 63 and 67 percent, depending on the survey. Today, he averages 58 percent, a good number when compared to his predecessors – and astonishingly positive, taking into account that Obama received it in the middle of a deep recession. The overall picture, however, also includes the fact that the number of citizens who feel Obama is on the wrong track has significantly increased from 19 percent at the end of January to 36 percent.

The continuing appreciation is also the product of very professional, and at the core very cold-blooded, media relations. Obama had promised a more honest dialogue with the American people about the core of the problems and transparency of the government’s actions. In that context, his frequent presence on television and his polished appearance are two decisive factors. His team has resorted to some extreme measures to polish Obama’s image. Before a hastily-arranged press conference about Iran, ambitious journalists were informed which questions would be welcomed.

When looking behind the scenes, the discrepancy between appearance and reality is sometimes even bigger than that of his predecessor, Bush. Of course, that is also because Bush never laid claim to a transparent administration. Obama, on the other hand, did. Many American journalists complain that working conditions today are much harder than they were under the Bush administration. Instead of giving detailed explanations, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tries to wordily hide what is going on, which initiatives the president is currently working on and with whom he is communicating to win support. Obama has never maintained buddy-like relations with journalists. During the election campaign, he was always open and friendly, which should not be confused with any personal interest. Once president, he clarified again that he cared about professional acquaintances, not emotional closeness. That, he gives exclusively to his wife and daughters.

The frustration among foreign correspondents is equally as large. They had hoped for increased accessibility based on Obama’s promise to strengthen the dialogue and cooperation with American allies. Only few have easier access to the White House. The daily press briefings give good insight into the development of the relationship between Obama’s apparatus and his professional chroniclers. As of yet, the atmosphere is still friendly – apart from the media that are more closely associated with the Republicans. But even among the Obamaphile journalists, questions have become more critical. Many are displeased that Gibbs devotes most of his limited amount of time to the correspondents of major television channels and the AP, who both have seats in the first two rows of the press room.

When Obama welcomes foreign guests or travels abroad, it becomes obvious: his international activities are a nice adornment, but domestic policies are his priority. He certainly is not an isolationist, but many factors point to the subordination of his foreign contacts. He does not care much about formalities the media generally like to examine to better understand the appreciation of a foreign visitor: for example, if the meeting with the press is arranged in the Oval Office or the Rose Garden, or if it is promoted to an official press conference (as in the case of the German Chancellor). He also does not waste much thought on the gifts that are usually exchanged on such occasions. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave him a pen holder that had been carved out of oak from the Gannet, a ship that had once chased slave traders. The president’s desk in the Oval Office was carved from its daughter ship, the Resolute. In return, Obama gifted Brown a plastic box of DVDs.

During his visit to France at the beginning of June, Obama passed on a dinner with President Sarkozy and instead dined with his wife and daughters at a top Paris restaurant. In July, during the evening of his second day in Moscow, he once more preferred “family time” over a banquet with Russian dignitaries. In both cases, the hosts were upset. Obama also broke with the tradition of giving at least one interview to a media member of the host country before his trip. He only takes the time for initiatives that establish his reputation: In Egypt, he spoke to Arab media in order to gain support for his speech to the Muslims; and with the Russian news agency Itar-Tass before he proposed nuclear disarmament in Moscow.

It seems as if Obama does not put his heart and soul into foreign policy, but rather considers it something that comes after his domestic duty. He has, however, shaken things up and posed some surprisingly clear demands. But what does it come down to in the end? Will he really put more pressure on Israel if it will not stop its settlement projects? Is he aware of how annoyed Central Europeans are, particularly the Polish, after his courting of Russia – and does he care?

What Obama undertook globally will have to take a subordinate role to the primacy of domestic policies. His plan to close Guantanamo met resistance in Congress. No U.S. politician is willing to accommodate prisoners who cannot return to their home country. Foreign countries are supposed to solve the problem for America. In cases like this, Obama is not fighting for his original objectives. He acquiesces. His contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will not be measured by what climate scientists find necessary or what he promised during the campaign, but by what the House of Representatives and the Senate think the country can put up with. The result will probably be disappointing, but Obama will most likely not fight about it to the bitter end.

The domestic agenda has priority. At the very top is health care reform, followed by the economic stimulus. Theoretically, Obama still holds a clear majority in Congress, but in practice he cannot rely on it. With every concern, he has to re-organize. If he is able to push this reform bill through the Senate, he will grow wings. Domestic success would create more international leeway for him. Failure could slow him down – which also explains his caution. After all, he has only been in office for six months.