Rule 1: Don't Irritate the Voters

The Democratic and Republican leaders finally came to an agreement. In any other scenario, both parties would have gotten the blame.

The recent happenings in the United States can only partially be attributed to the economic crisis. The American economy is in passable shape, and the consequences of a suspension of interest payments or temporary cash shortages in the federal coffers would be less serious than the media describe.

An F for Obama

What we saw unfold over the past month was a fascinating strategic game, one with many players and without a zero-sum rule. The victory of one side would not necessarily translate to defeat for the other. The biggest losers of all might actually be the players who remained on the sidelines.

The prize of the game wasn’t as much as raising the debt ceiling as it was setting the stage for the 2012 elections. The main player in this game was the one who has the most to lose from the elections, Barack Obama.

Even Obama’s most ardent supporters have become disillusioned during his term. Promising “hope,” Obama has largely continued the policies of his predecessor, and the differences, when existent, were only cosmetic. The United States might have “retreated” from Iraq, but it left 50,000 troops in the country. Obama has only declared an intention to leave Afghanistan, a move unpopular among the military leadership. He has not moved on immigration reform, which was a big motivational factor for Latino voters. The raising of the debt ceiling was a test of leadership for Obama and one that he has failed.

Most observers noted that in the deciding week leading up to the vote, Obama gave the same speech twice and between those speeches, he disappeared for four full days. Americans do not expect their president to rule their lives, but they expect him be a leader who provides direction, soothing the citizens and inspiring the uninterested.

Obama has done none of these things, even though the situation was foreseeable. Bush had the right to be surprised by the attacks on 9/11 and in a way, by Hurricane Katrina. Obama has no excuse.

The Game of Poker

The leaders of both chambers of Congress had decidedly less to lose, seeing that they are a far cry from the statesmen of old. If they do something, it won’t be for free. They want money for their campaigns, federal investments in their districts and maybe a cushy executive job. This has been exemplified by the show “The West Wing,” known by Polish viewers as “Presidential Poker.”

The leaders of Congress did not come to an understanding because they suddenly put the interests of the nation in front of their own. They reached an agreement because public opinion data clearly showed that both sides would be blamed for the impasse. This was not a beneficial situation for either party.

If Obama was certain that Republicans would be blamed for any resulting crisis, rather than compromise, he would have stuck with the Congressional Democrats. If the Republican leadership in the House had certainty that any public rage would land on the shoulders of the president, nothing would have convinced them to compromise, an option that was heavily criticized by the tea party wing of the GOP.

Further proof that both parties were afraid of the fallout for their respective parties is the fact that the next projected debt ceiling raise has been moved to after the 2012 elections. The only sure thing in the agreement between the president and Congress is the agreement that the next votes about budget cuts have been tentatively scheduled for the week before Thanksgiving 2012. The elections are scheduled before the votes take place.

The Expensive Umbrella

In the meantime, the first phase of the agreement will come to fruition, whereby Congress will try to establish areas for budget cuts. If these cuts aren’t found, painful cuts will be enacted automatically. These cuts will hurt both sides. Medicare will serve as a reminder for the Democrats, while cuts to the Pentagon budget will serve as a stick for the Republicans. The first area is important for Americans, while the other has implications for Poland and for Europe as well.

On July 5, I wrote an article stating that European countries can afford entitlements only because of the unequal defense burden shared by those countries with America. This situation might soon change. It is inconceivable that Washington, faced with the prospect of cutting $2.5 trillion in spending, will be willing to bear the costs of keeping the military umbrella extended over Europe.

Despite the panicked reporting from last week, the American financial crisis never had any direct effect on European markets. However, the spirit and letter of the agreement that was reached have forced the countries of Europe to make a choice. Either they can drastically increase defense spending or they can regard themselves as defenseless. This is a choice that Poland, too, must soon make.