Obama’s Dark Year at the White House: Change Did Not Go Beyond the Slogan

The year 2009 ushered in the first black president of the United States to the White House after Americans elected Barack Obama to become the 44th president on November 4, 2008. Many people inside and outside the United States expected a dramatic shift to take place in U.S. political life, and in Washington’s positions on important global issues.

According to many experts within the United States, the Obama administration is seeking to bring real change at home by decreasing the influence of lobbyists while increasing government transparency. However, a year after getting elected, skepticism is on the rise with many Americans questioning what Obama has accomplished thus far and becoming increasingly uncomfortable with his calls for change that he has yet to bring.

Obama inherited a nation troubled internally and externally. According to the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, there is a distinction between campaigning and governance; there is a difference between what is said during elections and the factors a president must confront when making decisions. There is a distinction between speeches designed for local audiences and winning votes, versus speeches the president must make to promote national interests.

Former U.S. President George Bush was inaugurated during a time of world peace and security, with American forces enjoying a lengthy break, oil prices at $23 per barrel, economic growth exceeding 3 percent, and a rise in the value of the dollar against major currencies of the world. The U.S. debt was less than $6 trillion and, additionally, there was a global desire to cooperate with Washington following the events of September 11, 2001. On the other hand, President Obama’s election coincided with the inheritance of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the expansion of U.S. operations in Pakistan, oil prices settled at $70 per barrel, and a drop in the value of the dollar. Moreover, there was waning international support and agreement with Washington, a fiscal deficit reaching $1 trillion during his first year, and an increase in debt approaching $10 trillion with an unprecedented U.S. and global economic crisis.

If Obama’s win could be attributed to one sole factor, it would be, without any exaggeration, the slogan of change on which he ran during his election campaign. This is not because of the word change itself, per se, but rather because the slogan came from the right person at the right time (the flare up of internal and external American crisis) and suitably, an organized election campaign was able to employ the slogan appropriately.

A year later, this led to frustration on three levels:

1. Frustrations due to high expectations: Obama’s call for change created national expectations that bordered on fantasy due to his bright promises. He promised to provide healthcare coverage to all Americans at a time when close to 50 million Americans lack coverage. Despite the attainment of this promise [in the form of a bill], its delivery remains unrealistic. A battle rages between the Obama administration and Congress regarding the particulars of healthcare reform, with the outcome likely to be different from what Obama pledged. Providing healthcare coverage for all Americans will not materialize. And, Obama will pay a heavy political price as soon as Congress approves the draft reform bill, with steep costs approaching $1 trillion. Bear in mind that healthcare costs represent one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

2. Difficulty of change in Washington: the American political performance exhibits what is the worst in Washington. Lobbyists’ prominent role disturbs policy making, particularly within the halls of Congress. The lobby adopts a policy of intimidation already exercised with great success on many members of the House of Representatives. Because of repeated elections every two years, the majority of the representatives would not risk adopting dramatic draft resolutions that oppose the status quo- a fact evident with everything from health coverage to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Obama was forced to give in to numerous pressures both from within and outside his party. This is clearly apparent in the high tone adopted by the Obama administration against Israeli settlement policy, which subsequently declined quite noticeably due to pressures from the Jewish lobby in Washington and Obama’s unwillingness to fight more battles at this critical time.

3. The absence of a clear philosophical framework: in 1992 President Bill Clinton adopted a policy calling for further economic and political globalization at home and abroad. He also called for supporting free market economics with clear government support for the educational sector. Then in 2000, Bush clearly adopted a right-wing policy beginning with unilateral foreign policy decisions, marginalizing the role of international organizations, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, supporting Christian America and protecting capitalist interests.

Obama did not elaborate during his first year on a clear philosophy for his leadership. By American standards he started from the left calling for health coverage, with a public option provided for everyone. He offered the utmost support to the American private sector with close to a $1 trillion of taxpayer money, which later led Republicans to resist his aim for a greater governmental role in the management of the economy.

There are seven weeks left before the closing of Guantanamo, where Washington is still holding over 200 terrorist suspects. Obama promised to close it during his first days in office, a move that greatly increased his popularity outside the United States. However, it is not yet clear what the fate of the detention center or the detainees will be.