Barack Obama: One Year Later

The election of Barack Obama was the biggest story of 2009 for Americans, more than the collapse of the economy, health care reform, the death of Michael Jackson or the appearance of the H1N1 virus. However, a year later, the U.S. president himself admits he is far from achieving his great dream: “Keeping the country as unified as it was during my inauguration.”

The young African-American leader navigates through turbulent waters. America’s left wing, the utopians hoping for abrupt change and total solutions, has raised the ax. Leftist Gore Vidal says of Obama, “He is an incompetent who will be defeated in the next election.” The Rangers on the right wing see him as a sort of fallen angel, who will be added to the list of American presidents viewed as historical failures, despite what he once represented for millions of citizens. Although these extreme positions are of dubious reliability, what is more worrisome for the occupant of the White House is that the latest polls (Quinnipiac University, CNN, etc.) show the U.S. divided, with roughly 45 percent for, 45 percent against, on whether Obama’s first year has been a success or not.

Who is right? The problem, it seems to me, is that we should first consider the very system of power in America. When speaking of the U.S. president as the most powerful man in the world, one forgets the rules of the political circus in which he functions. The fears of kings and tyrants that the Mayflower European immigrants imported to America produced a political system that is burdened and slowed down by a game of opposing powers. The political joke that “the only decision that the president can make is to go to the bathroom” illustrates his constraints, which are not only due to the system of powerful advisers, but are also caused at the legislative level.

Therefore, to avoid a filibuster from the opposition, the president needs a majority of 60 percent in the Senate if he wants to pass laws. It is a weakness of American democracy that reflects back on the power of the executive. It only took two prestigious Democratic senators (Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota) announcing that they will not seek reelection in November for deep fear to take hold in the Democratic ranks. The slow movement of health care reform between the two houses, the House of Representatives and Senate, and the fact that Obama has had to leave the actual wording of the bill to Congress, sacrificing his campaign promises, is a good example of what I mean. He even had to resort to what is known in political parliamentary jargon as the nuclear weapon: a special address to both houses, which is rarely used, except to address the country on the state of the nation. As Garton Ash points out, Franklin Roosevelt—who Obama wants to imitate—only made one in his long presidency: when he asked Congress to declare war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Therefore, what should be a success for the president, which is how Europe sees it, is the most criticized issue of his political agenda. The U.S. Republicans see the increase in spending and the deficit in the budget as intolerable; left-wing Democrats accuse Obama of having given up a “truly public” health care option. You have to wonder that only 35 percent of citizens are for his health reform, compared to 55 percent against.

Now, not everything is the system’s fault. Many times the personality of the president is a key factor in his/her success or hindrance. If we agree with Richard Norton, presidents are essentially mysterious figures, with capabilities that are not fully understood. For example, Robert McFarlane, National Security Adviser to Reagan, commented on the amazing connection between how little the old president knew and the amount of success he achieved. The key was in his optimistic and determined character. Obama is an educated, brave, handsome, affable and bright man, but he doubts too much, reconciles in excess, delays decisions, and reflects on the gray area in emergency situations; he wants to please everyone.

This could be positive if Obama had not based his brilliant campaign on an unattainable goal. His “everything is possible” message crystallized into a shout that resounded in the world: “Yes we can.” A year later, it seems be “No you can’t.” It is as if, for fear of losing the campaign, Obama had applied the old formula of “win first, and then we’ll see.” But reality is relentless when we come down from the blue sky of promises to the vulgar world of facts, so the gap between what was offered and the reality concerns the electorate. As noted in my book, regarding Obama’s policy, “the changes are delayed, the promises are hazy, and deadlines are extended too much; the myth about the man is burying the politician.”

Consider international politics—in some aspects, it is true that Obama shows signs of the Carter syndrome. He oscillates in Afghanistan between fixed-term withdrawal and massive deployment of troops. In the Middle East, he takes a pro-Palestinian stand while launching his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, with statements in favor of Benjamin Netanyahu that so angered Mahmoud Abbas he even labeled Obama as “traitor.” He heads the global lobby for environmental ecology, but closes with China in Copenhagen with an agreement described as a disaster for the environment. He manifests before the two houses in Congress that he will not fund abortion with federal money, while Hillary announces that the United States will be involved in a massive funding effort for the UN to promote “reproductive health services” as a basic right, including abortion. He accepts a premature Nobel and to avoid being accused of being a pacifist, delivers a speech on war in Stockholm.

Similarly, in China his administration defends freedom of expression as an “inalienable universal right,” but at the same time declares war on the Fox network on U.S. television, forgetting that history shows that “the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence”(David Carr, The New York Times). Regarding the economy, two facts are sufficient: he promised to cut the deficit in half, but in 2009 it is estimated at 1.42 trillion dollars (almost one billion Euros), while the deficit Obama presented for 2010 is 1.75 billion; and his promises on unemployment have failed, based on the December data, it is now nearly on 10 percent.

Thus, the Republicans’ victories in the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey portend ill winds for Obama in the November mid-term. The Democrats are beginning to wonder whether Obama will be a benefit or a burden for those elections. In my opinion, this is a question that sins by impatience. The young African-American leader is still in the learning phase. The first 18 months of a presidency in the U.S. represent a period in which the incumbent has to acquire or get rid of many concepts about his work, regardless of previous experience.

As Neustadt noted, “Regardless of his prior training, nothing he has done will have prepared him for all facets of that job.” Becoming the central organizer of the economic, political, legal, cultural and ecological values that will govern the lives of all mankind takes time. Especially if you think you have to do it in the turmoil of events, ceremonies, crises, travel requests, attacks and surprises that make up the presidential routine on a normal day.

For the moment, he has managed to clean up the U.S.’s global image, has acted as a true commander in chief regarding the disaster in Haiti (even though sending 10,000 Marines has unnerved Chavez and Ortega) and he has initiated a period of detente with Russia and Islamic countries, although the terrorist threat has made him forget his promises about Guantanamo. Let’s give him time, as long as Obama does not forget what an old senator said to a young president, “Son, do not get too comfortable in the chair in the Oval Office. Before you know it will be time to leave. We are all temporary in politics, especially presidents.”*




Rafael Navarro-Valls is a professor of law at the Complutense University; among other books, he is the author of Entre la Casa Blanca y el Vaticano (Between the White House and the Vatican).
“The changes are delayed and deadlines are overextended; the myth about the man is burying the politician.”

*The editor was unable to identify the source of this quotation.