Is 2012 the Minor Doomsday for President Obama?

I need to be neither a futurist nor a soothsayer to predict how difficult the 2012 presidential race will be for President Obama. Today often gives us clues about what tomorrow will be like. Getting clues from today, Obama’s rivals have begun their presidential campaign already. Of course, President Obama is not sitting idly either; he has his hands full with his election campaign preparations. I think that the pictures of the American president swimming in the waters of Florida with his daughter, to encourage American people who canceled their travel plans because of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, marks the beginning of Obama’s 2012 election campaign.

I hear you say, “But before you leap to 2012, there are mid-term elections in November 2010.” True, but the road to 2012 goes through 2010. The midterm elections, in which people will vote for the 435-seated House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate, will surely influence Obama’s fate in 2012. The midterm elections, after all, can cause President Obama to lose the House of Representatives and the Senate to the Republicans, and therefore might turn him into a “lame duck.” If you were a Republican presidential candidate, would you not rather compete with a lame duck? Or, if you were President Obama, would you not use all the means available not to be shot in the leg in the middle of the road, especially when the latest indicators are not to your favor?

Alongside a hot American summer, magma lies under this volcanic political bout. The initial wave of assumptions about the president seems to have given way to increasing dissatisfaction due to the absence of visible improvement in the economy. The surveys consistently show a decrease in the approval of Obama’s performance. It is not unprecedented that the popularity of American presidents would decline two years after they assume office, but some indicators are worrisome for Obama. The popular support for the president has just declined below the critical 50 percent line. According to a Gallup poll, in the seven midterm elections the U.S. has had since World War II, American presidents with below 50 percent of popular support lost an average of 36 seats in the House of Representatives. The Democrats currently control the House of Representatives, with 78 seats more than the Republicans; losing 40 seats would be enough to force the Democrats to relinquish their control. This means that if popular dissatisfaction does not phase out and history repeats itself, it is highly likely that the current balance in the House of Representatives might change. Perhaps such a “change” is not the kind that President Obama, who proclaimed “change” as the watchword in his election campaign, desires.

Do not get tempted to say that “Congress does not matter; it is all about retaining the White House.” In the American political system, Congress, which is not placed under executive control, is the single most important organ of making decisions in politics. The Republicans are like their Turkish counterparts and say that “there is a good in blind objection” to virtually every wise or misguided policy that Obama has been following, and they could have even more ample opportunity to block Obama’s way. We should point out that the Republicans are bent on saying “no” not only to Obama but also to Turkey. I spoke with an expert from a think tank a few days ago who rightly mentioned that the conservatives are in dispute with Turkey, and they might create serious troubles for Turkey should they assert control over Congress first and then possibly the White House.

One of the principal criticisms the Republicans direct at President Obama is that they think Obama is harsh on major American allies such as the United Kingdom and Israel, while he is soft on U.S. enemies such as Russia and Iran. For many conservatives, Turkey is now classified among the U.S.’ foes, due to its stance on the invasion of Iraq, approach to the Iranian nuclear program and conflicts with Israel over Gaza. No doubt that when the reasonable and pragmatic elements in the American state and public come into the equation, the overtly nationalistic motives of the conservatives will be balanced. Yet, I agree with the idea that Turkey will have more headaches in a Washington if the Republicans sit in the driver’s seat. I would also like to remind you that, heavily influenced by the defense and Israeli lobbies, the Republicans look at Turkey predisposed to see the sinews of the laicist, militarist status quo in Turkey.

In a nutshell, the coming months are ripe for a political election campaign in the United States that might not only change the fate and roadmap of the country but also have significant reflections on Turkey and the world at large. Although President Obama has so far been balanced in his overall posture and policies, the chances are higher that he will now pursue a more populist and harsher foreign policy posture in order to appeal to the American public and counter the increasing claims of the opposition that he is “weak.” The Obama administration, which seems to have failed to make tangible progress in the economy and health care due to constant Republican filibuster and blocks, as well as the nature of these deep-rooted systemic problems, might implement new strategies in the foreign policy area where Obama has more room to do so. As a result, the Iranian issue does not only concern American national security but also has a clear bearing in American domestic politics. This might also explain why Turkish involvement in the Iranian issue disturbs people in both the White House and Congress. In conclusion, the upcoming political campaigns in both Turkey and Washington carry a potential to build new tensions in U.S.-Turkey relations. Beware!