After the gun control failure, Americans are debating whether their president is already a lame duck.
Recently, when the Senate voted against all proposals to tighten gun laws in the U.S., Barack Obama suffered his biggest political defeat yet as president — a defeat that has since led to an intense discussion in the political circles of Washington. Has president Obama, just 100 days into his second term, already become a lame duck?
The debate is a variation of the general puzzlement of many people across the globe regarding the 44th president of the United States: If he is so popular, if he is such a good speaker, if he gets elected with such convincing numbers of votes, why can he not govern? Why can he not close the prison in Guantánamo? Why can he not adopt a long-term plan to create stability for the U.S. economy? Why has he not done something about climate change or improved conditions for the lowest class, consisting of the 11 million undocumented workers and — very relevant at the moment — why can he not even get a law passed on compulsory background checks for weapons purchases, when 80 to 90 percent of the American voters support the idea? Or, as ABC journalist Jonathan Karl inquired last week [directly addressing Obama], when Obama held a press conference exactly 100 days into his second term, "Do you still have the juice to get the rest of your agenda through this Congress?"
A visibly annoyed Obama sarcastically replied that maybe he should just pack up and go home, but then added:
"Golly. You know, the — I think it’s — it’s a little — as Mark Twain said, you know, rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated at this point."
Commentator: Do It Like in the Movies
It is hardly surprising that conservative commentators, long ago and with ill-concealed glee, wrote off Obama.
In The Wall Street Journal, commentator Peggy Noonan described the president as passive, weak and without the power to get any legislation though the Senate: "There are 44 months left to Mr. Obama's presidency. He's not a lame duck, he's just lame."
But what has clearly done most harm to the president is that criticism also comes from within his own ranks — most significantly from The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who recently used an entire column to mock the president for his gun laws defeat. According to Dowd, the problem is that Obama does not understand how Washington works.
"The White House should have created a war room full of charts with the names of pols they had to capture, like they had in 'The American President,'" Dowd wrote, referring to a film from 1995, written by Aaron Sorkin, the man behind the TV series "The West Wing," with actor Michael Douglas in the lead.
"Soaring speeches have their place, but this was about blocking and tackling," Dowd established.
A couple of days later, when Obama attended the yearly White House correspondents’ dinner, he chose quite unusually to give a commentator a direct retort and, although it was in the shape of a joke, the gravity behind it was clear:
"Maureen Dowd said I could solve all my problems if I were just more like Michael Douglas in ‘The American President.’ And I know Michael is here tonight. Michael, what’s your secret, man? Could it be that you were an actor in an Aaron Sorkin liberal fantasy," sounded off the president with caustic sarcasm.
But the duel was not over. In her next column, Dowd repeated her point about Obama being too weak and that his job is simply to get Congress to toe the line, no matter how clumsy and stubborn the politicians are: "It’s called leadership. He still thinks he’ll do his thing from the balcony and everyone else will follow along below. That’s not how it works."
The column brought Obama’s former speechwriter, Jon Favreau, to figuratively shake his head in despair. In a comment on the website The Daily Beast, he tried to convey the basis of the U.S. political system, which was deliberately constructed in such a way as to not give too much power to the president.
"The founders, reluctant to entrust any executive with the kind of authority that was so abused by the king they revolted against, created a separation of powers between co-equal branches of government," he wrote. But how boring is that?" he added.
According to Favreau, the case is simply put that the Republicans in Congress refuse to participate in any compromise on the issues Obama categorizes as top priority. They fear that any concession can be used against them by even more uncompromising Republicans and tea party politicians the next time they are up for election.
The analysis was supplemented by the commentator Ezra Klein, who pointed out that the polarization of American politics makes it almost impossible for the president to act. He blames the media for presenting it as if it is all just a matter of a little better leadership, and that everything will work out if a new president is chosen.
"That’s terrifically convenient, because that also happens to be the part of American politics that voters most enjoy participating in and that media most enjoys covering," he wrote.
The point is simply that — apart from foreign policy matters, where the president's freedom of action is greater — power in the American system is actually concentrated in Congress. No law can be passed without the two chambers of Congress. Both currently have Republicans who are in a position to block any compromise, and they do just that. It makes Obama look weak, and you do not need a doctorate to realize that for many Republicans that is exactly their main goal.
Hvorfor kan Obama ikke regere?
Efter nederlaget i sagen om våbenlovene, diskuterer USA, om deres præsident allerede er handlingslammet
Da Senatet for nylig nedstemte samtlige forslag til strammere våbenlove i USA, led Barack Obama sit største politiske nederlag som præsident.
Et nederlag, som siden har ført til en intens diskussion i den politiske klasse i Washington: Er præsident Obama blot 100 dage inde i sin anden periode allerede blevet handlingslammet - eller som det hedder med et amerikansk udtryk: Er han blevet en lame duck?
Debatten er en variant af den undren, som mange mennesker over hele verden har i forhold til USA's 44. præsident: Når han er så populær, når han er så god en taler, når han er blevet valgt med så overbevisende stemmetal - hvorfor kan han så ikke regere?
Hvorfor kan han ikke lukke fængslet i Guantánamo? Hvorfor kan han ikke få vedtaget en langsigtet plan, der kan skabe ro om USA's økonomi? Hvorfor har han ikke gjort noget ved klimaet eller forbedret vilkårene for den underklase, der udgøres af USA's 11 millioner papirløse arbejdere?
Og altså helt aktuelt: Hvorfor kan han ikke engang få vedtaget en lov om obligatoriske baggrundstjek ved våbenkøb, når nu 80-90 procent af de amerikanske vælgere støtter tanken?
Eller som ABC's journalist Jonathan Karl spurgte, da Obama i sidste uge holdt pressemøde præcis 100 dage inde i sin anden periode: »Har du stadig saft og kraft nok til at få resten af din dagsorden vedtaget i Kongressen?«.
En synligt irriteret Obama svarede sarkastisk, at han måske bare burde pakke sammen og rejse hjem, men tilføjede så: »Jeg tror, det er lidt, som Mark Twain sagde: Rygterne om min død er overdrevne«.
Kommentator: Gør som på film
Det er næppe så overraskende, at borgerlige kommentatorer for længst - og med slet skjult skadefryd - har afskrevet Obama.
IWall Street Journal betegnede kommentatoren Peggy Noonan præsidenten som passiv og svag og ude af stand til at få vedtaget noget som helst.
»Der er 44 måneder tilbage af Obamas præsidentperiode. Han er ikke handlingslammet - han er bare lam«, skrev hun.
Men hvad der tydeligvis har gjort mere ondt på præsidenten, er, at kritikken også kommer fra egne rækker. Mest markant fra New York Times-skribenten Maureen Dowd, der for nylig brugte en hel klumme på at håne præsidenten for nederlaget om våbenlove. Problemet var ifølge Dowd, at Obama ikke forstår, hvordan Washington fungerer.
»Det Hvide Hus skulle have oprettet en kommandocentral fyldt med lister over de politikere, de skulle vinde over på deres side - ligesom de gjorde i filmen ' Præsident på frierfødder'«, skrev Maureen Dowd med henvisning til en film fra 1995, der var skrevet af manden bag tv-serien ' Westwing', Aaron Sorkin, og havde skuespilleren Michael Douglas i hovedrollen.
»Forførende taler kan være fine, men det her handlede om at skubbe og tackle«, fastslog Dowd.
Da Barack Obama nogle dage senere holdt tale ved den årlige middag for pressekorpset fra Kongressen, valgte han helt usædvanligt at give en kommentator direkte svar på tiltale - og selv om det skete i form af en vits, lod alvoren sig ikke skjule: »Maureen Dowd siger, at jeg kunne løse alle mine problemer, hvis jeg bare var mere som Michael Douglas i ' Præsident på frierfødder'.
Og jeg ved, at Michael er her i aften. Michael, hvad er din hemmelighed, mand? Kunne det være, at du var en skuespiller i en venstreorienteret fantasi af Aaron Sorkin?«, lød det med ætsende sarkasme fra præsidenten.
Dermed var duellen ikke overstået. I sin næste klumme gentog Maureen Dowd sin pointe om, at Obama er for svag, og hans job simpelt hen er at få Kongressen til at makke ret, uanset hvor gumpetunge og genstridige politikerne er. »Det kaldes lederskab. Han tror stadig, at han kan stå oppe på balkonen og holde en tale, der får alle til gå i hans retning. Det er ikke sådan, det fungerer«, skrev Dowd.
Klummen fik Obamas afgåede taleskriver Jon Favreau til at tage sig til hovedet i fortvivlelse. I en kommentar på hjemmesiden The Daily Beast forsøgte han sig med et grundkursus i det amerikanske politiske system, der netop er konstrueret på en måde, så der ikke samles for megen magt hos præsidenten.
»Nationens fædre skabte magtens tredeling, fordi de netop ikke ville udstyre nogen regering med de samme magtbeføjelser, der var blevet misbrugt sådan af den konge, de havde gjort oprør imod«, skrev han og tilføjede:
»Men hvor kedeligt er det?«.
Ifølge Favreau er sagen helt enkelt, at republikanerne i Kongressen nægter at deltage i noget som helst kompromis om de sager, Obama har øverst på dagsordenen.
De frygter, at enhver indrømmelse kan bruges imod dem af endnu mere kompromisløse republikanere og Tea Partypolitikere, næste gang de er på valg.
Analysen blev suppleret af kommentatoren Ezra Klein, der pegede på, at polariseringen i amerikansk politik gør det nærmest umuligt for præsidenten at handle. Han bebrejder medier, at de fremstiller det, som om det hele bare er et spørgsmål om lidt bedre lederskab, og at det hele løser sig, hvis de vælger en ny præsident.
»Det er utroligt belejligt, fordi det tilfældigvis er den del af amerikansk politik, vælgerne holder mest af at deltage i, og medierne holder mest af at dække«, skrev han.
Pointen er bare, at magten i det amerikanske system faktisk er koncentreret i Kongressen - i hvert fald når man ser bort fra udenrigspolitiske sager, hvor præsidentens handlefrihed er større.
Ingen lov kan vedtages uden om Kongressens to kamre. Begge steder er republikanerne for tiden i stand til at blokere for ethvert kompromis, og det gør de.
Det får Obama til at se svag ud, og man behøver ingen doktorgrad for at indse, at netop det for mange republikanere er hele pointen.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.