I think that Barack Obama’s presidency will be seen as the breaking point in U.S. politics.
In terms of internal affairs, two factors stand out: the economic recovery following the 2008 collapse, and the public health care system reform. Other important issues have also led to the strengthening of minority rights, notably the case of equal marriage, and the implementation of local experiments regarding the legalization of marijuana.
There are, of course, several buts in each case. Recovery was achieved by way of an unjustified bailout of the very bodies that caused the economic crisis in the first place, i.e., banks and financial institutions. In addition, the health care system still has some way to go before it can be considered truly universal. Paradoxically, the first African-American presidency is also marked by a grave step backward in the rights of this minority group, evidenced by the murders committed by police officers against African-Americans.
On the international spectrum, Obama tried to redirect U.S. foreign policy toward Asia in geostrategic terms, recognizing China’s new role in the world, and above all seeking to reinforce multilateral action regarding development, armed interventions and crime fighting.
Several events make evaluating Obama’s foreign policy very controversial: the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East from several sides, ranging from how to tackle the dictatorship in Syria and how to progress with the complex peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, to how to maintain a dialogue that promotes human rights while U.S. politics support dictators such as those who govern Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other countries in that region. Also to be considered are the deteriorating relations between the United States and Russia over the serious impact Russia has had in Europe and the Middle East.
It is of the utmost importance to recognize that the global governance agreements that have taken place since World War II have eroded. This is thanks to the emergence of the uncontrollable savage power of representative and legitimizing bodies such as international financial power, religious terrorism, or others, organized crime links to illegal drug trade, the absence of governance structures in certain strategic areas of the world, as well as the serious damage that has been done to global cohabitation, including damage related to climate change, and the refugee and migrant crises.
In an increasingly more complex world, two factors best define President Obama’s foreign policy. First is the acknowledgement that the world has ceased to be a unipolar world (if it ever was) and the resulting search by the United States for a new role in the world. Second is the search for new ways to coordinate and cooperate at regional levels.
Much more was expected of Obama in terms of what progressive sectors expected, many of which are non-partisan and were key in mobilizing people during the 2008 electoral campaign and Obama’s re-election in 2012. From the outset, two mistakes marked those false expectations. Obama could and can essentially be considered in the center of the political spectrum, and is someone who challenged the ways of being a global leader, but not the role of the United States as a global power. Similarly, Obama criticized the design of domestic policies, and believed that he could create a politically central coalition in the U.S. Congress between Democrats and Republicans.
However, the United States is increasingly becoming a country of diverse minorities — including whites — and less of the melting pot of cultures and races that it was for a long time. The political class in the U.S. is less prone to political maneuvering, and more to conflict and the immobilizing policy of vetos. All of this is occurring against the backdrop of the immense presidential campaign of 2016.
This article is off base, and lost credibility when stating Officers have been racially targeting blacks. ZERO evidence. There is substantial evidence of the contrary in fact.