Sources of Obama’s Power and Weakness

Many historians in the United States agree that U.S. presidents belong historically to specific time phases. In other words, a sense of belonging to the era of the Industrial Revolution, years of stagnation, or the era of the Cold War and the conflict of survival with the Soviet Union, or other periods that extend to generations such that a number of presidents share its characteristics.

The question finally raised is how Obama’s era will be described.

Obama himself has not ignored the opinions of historians. He even invited a group of historians of the presidency to dinner at the White House in May 2010. He discussed [this] with them and listened to their analyses, which combine history and modern political vision. The era of the Cold War, extending more than 50 years, is a separate phase from every other age. Even the impact of the end of the war did not show up immediately. After the end of the Cold War, the arguments of the elites and the political thinkers revolved in the processes of interaction and friction until Obama’s era came.

During the years of the Cold War — which began after World War II in 1945 and the launching of the strategy of containment of the Soviet Union in 1947 — institutions to manage global affairs were established. A command center was based in the U.S. because of its great productive, scientific, educational, economic and military capabilities, as well as its unique creation of projects undertaken by the NATO international system, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations.

Nevertheless, such projects were launched in the era of Truman, who is known for his limited knowledge of the world and his ignorance of foreign policy. These projects were created and formulated by Dean Acheson, secretary of state, and he was described as a dean of modern American diplomacy in diplomatic circles in Washington, D.C.

During this era, America had extensive experience in the affairs of the Soviet Union and the management of conflict. Foreign policies were based on precise international strategy to provide security to their country, including:

1. Identifying interests of crucial national security;

2. Identifying what might threaten those interests;

3. Identifying the best means to administer the resources of the military, political and economic state to protect such interests and to weaken the powers of the competitor rival.

The era of George Bush came, attributed as the cornerstone of the new international strategy — known under the name of the Bush doctrine and released by the White House on Sept. 2, 2002* — but it failed after six years. Americans recognized that Bush’s strategies fell victim to a theory that had not grasped the nature of the current change in the world and pictured that America’s power is still continuous, with no limits.

Before Obama came on the scene three years ago, centers of foreign policy-making generated controversies and research highlighting that the world has changed, and that the United States must change its foreign policy in order to deal with a world in which the U.S. cannot have a monopoly over the center of leadership and inspiration. Additionally, it can no longer resolve the problems and crises of the world, nor address the new challenges of its national security. It needs the cooperation of other states.

According to professor John Gaddis, an American expert in the affairs of the U.S.-Soviet conflict, the U.S.’ power and image started to decline in the last 10 years. Obama came up with ideas for change. Some historians even say that the contemporary presidency may not be able to tighten its grip on the reins of power, and that, from now on, will be a stamp of the presidential stage. The source of Obama’s power could be the source of his weakness, and his emergence in the last two years is like a ship encountering waves. Obama’s campaign for the White House was a big community movement, which required a comprehensive and an immediate change. In its confrontation with movements and well-established institutions that refuse to change and admit that the U.S. cannot be the first dominant power, the center of inspiration for values and political and social ideas, this is the heritage of future generations until it becomes a conviction itself.

Richard Hofstadter, an American historian, said that for Americans, America itself is a conviction. The source of Obama’s weakness is his negligence to communicate with the masses, who are disappointed by Obama’s “change.” This is because he was involved in a war with Republicans inside and outside of Congress, and that was one of the internal and external problems left behind by Bush. Obama found himself in the blowing wind from his opponents — Republicans, the conservative right, as well as a wide range of supporters.

Here, historians and political intellectuals are interested in this question: Does it mean that Obama’s era will be just a transition period, or will he grab the reins and turn his presidency historically into an extended period?

White House analysts and scouts think that his success in holding the reins was due to awareness of his mistakes in the last two years. Obama himself began to know that the root of his power was in the masses with whom he should communicate, and not the control tower of what he is doing.

*Editor’s Note: The main elements of the Bush doctrine were officially presented in the “National Security Strategy of the United States” document released by the White House on Sept. 17, 2002.