Obama’s Lean Frankfurters

Barack Obama remembered that in 2.5 years his party will stand for election. However, instead of a fat electoral sausage, so far he has produced lean frankfurters.

President Obama woke up in the middle of winter, after his popularity had hit an all-time low. In his annual manifesto on the state of the country, he promised “a year of action.” Such political marketing cannot really help the teflon successor to the golden-mouthed Bill Clinton. American voters probably expected action throughout the whole presidency.

Why not make use of populism, then? The Democrat offered a few projects to help the poor. He announced that, to the extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution, he will ignore Congress, which is full of Republican rivals who put the skids under his plans.

Even though [the public] will definitely like the declaration about the increase in the federal minimum wage, this does not make it a summer in the middle of an economic crisis and a crisis of trust in the president. To appeal for an increase in the minimum wage for everyone, Obama would have to turn to Congress. What is worse, economists warn that the president’s idea can be counterproductive and cause redundancies.

“America doesn’t stand still — and neither will I,” claims Obama. However, his track record gives a completely opposite impression. The slogans of “change” and “hope” have become a standstill in the middle of crisis. An attempt to reform the presidency — which Obama supporters hoped for — has ended with a screen freeze.

Obama does have a few successes in his record, the biggest being Iran. Therefore, he promised to defend the disarmament agreements with the ayatollahs at all costs, even if this requires a veto. Everything has its price, though. Giving up the military option in order to force a halt on uranium enrichment does not please Israel, which feels threatened. This, in turn, does not attract new supporters in Congress.

What is more, in half a year, an uncertain success in the negotiations with Iran may repress feelings of defeat in Afghanistan. Obama announced withdrawing the military a long time ago and this pleased voters — just like closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, promised umpteen times in his manifesto.

Now, when the word is to be made flesh, and the fields outside Kabul and Kandahar are full of troop carriers and tens of thousands of soldiers waiting for evacuation, the Taliban boldly raise their heads. They commit suicide bomb attacks, also near the U.S. embassy in the Afghan capital. After 12 years, hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of victims in the Western military intervention led by the United States, Afghanistan does not seem to be able to stand on its own. What if in 2016, when Washington starts an electoral race, the Taliban and al-Qaida come back triumphantly to Kabul — as happened in Iraq?

Obama seems to be weak. Like dogs on a hunt, his rivals can already smell the president’s blood. His manifesto was criticized — against tradition — by three members, not one, of Congress. Republicans and tea party conservatives condemned President Obama’s administration for wasting money, imposing increasingly higher taxes, and spying on its own citizens.

By 2016, the president needs to correct this impression. Objectively speaking, even if his rival would not have achieved anything better in difficult times, the nature of politics is cruel: Democracies exist from one opinion poll to the next opinion poll, from election to election. Voters often decide on an impulsive basis, incited by images they see on television. Historians build up an objective profile of presidents and their achievements after many years.

That is why politicians reach for an electoral sausage right before their “Judgment Day.” If they do not see the chance to make their promises look serious, like Obama, they start producing lean frankfurters instead.