Broker or President?

In America, as we know, an election campaign begins the day after the results of the previous elections are announced. When the winner on Inauguration Day assumes office, he realizes that every decision he will make as president, his every step, every action or opinion can voluntarily or involuntarily influence his chances for reelection. Of course, we are speaking about a president who wins his first election. If the president is in his second term — with all the freedom of political behavior, due to the fact he cannot be reelected — he cannot help but think about the election chances of his party and its candidate.

On the one hand, American democracy requires continuous attention to election cycles, which impedes the creation of long-term political strategies. On the other hand, it encourages politicians to pay special attention to the problem of preserving their policies after they’ve retired. Upholding this delicate balance requires high skills from America’s serious political players. Though, of course, it should be acknowledged that contributing to its preservation is the inner arrangement of the governmental system, in which no one holds a monopoly on decision-making, and compromise is continually sought. Another contributing factor is the fact that the fundamental national interests and values were accepted long ago by the majority of the people; no big differences remain.

Those differences that do arise are usually connected to tactical issues or problems, which become political problems, owing to transformations in morality — for instance, the right to abortion or the legalization of marriage between members of sexual minorities, the right to gun possession or illegal immigration, and so on.

Nevertheless, the necessity for thinking about the next election and the implementation of political programs makes every U.S. president keep up with public opinion and follow it. Taking into account the fact that the American president is a comparably weak chessman on the chessboard of American political life and that he cannot dictate his will, he should make efforts to secure the maximal representation of his supporters at all levels of the administrative hierarchy. The USA is a country with a large number of social, political, religious and other groups, with a developed civil society and with a mass media antagonistic toward government. All of them comprehend the situation, priorities, aims and methods differently. The members of one party can have considerable differences of opinion. The president’s task is to find a compromise suitable for the majority and non-detrimental to the minority. Though the USA is a presidential republic according to its Constitution, the president here is more of a political broker, a mediator, a visionary, than a national leader. The suggestion that the president governs America would make the majority of Americans laugh.

It is difficult to find out who really governs in America. Here everyone has to, at every moment, make a compromise. The internal policies of the USA — in contrast to its foreign policy — result from the continuous search for compromise. Compromise governs America. What is called American democracy arises from compromise. The internal political process is a continuous search for compromise, and American democracy is continuously compromising, which enables it to maintain the balance of interests along a very limited range of public opinion. Another thing is that this principle, as a rule, does not extend to America’s foreign policy, which is straightforward and rough. This is another peculiarity of American mass culture — inward with regard to itself, it ignores the activities of the political elite, which has been at the mercy of foreign policy.

Barack Obama was elected president when in the USA there was a great demand for a liberal politician in the White House. Obama, as it is known, was among the country’s three most liberal senators. All of them — Obama himself, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry — climbed high during the election campaign of 2008, which only confirmed the shift of public opinion toward liberal government. At the same time the Congress was occupied by the Democratic Party, which triumphed over its Republican rivals. Seemingly, Barack Obama was America’s most liberal president. At least, he is the most liberal president since Kennedy. As it appeared, the era of liberalism had begun in the country.

Nothing of the kind. First, Americans restored consciously or unconsciously the balance of power during the next elections, having voted for the Republican Party, which gained the majority of seats in the House of Representatives. As a result, both parties wanted badly to find a compromise. Second, Obama’s approval rating began to decrease gradually but steadily, having reached its nadir in the middle of the president’s second year. The liberal Obama had begun to disappoint Americans. Third, the series of political initiatives, which Obama promoted vigorously, was not accepted unanimously within American society, and that strengthened his political opponents. As a result, Obama drifted to the center. This trend was displayed when Obama delivered his annual “State of the Union” speech before the Congress, marking the midway point of his term in the Oval Office.

The main items of his speech give evidence that Obama seeks to occupy not liberal, but center-left positions, realizing that the majority of his supporters are moving there. Moreover, in such a situation it is easier for him to reach an understanding not only with neutrally minded groups, but also some Republicans. Obama makes a compromise with the public mood and lets everyone know that he is open to new compromises with his opponents. Here it is considered by no means as a president’s weakness, but as his strength — not as a betrayal of liberal values, but as an awareness of the situation. As a result, today Obama is stronger than he was only a few months ago. His rating holds at about 50 percent, and for now there are no doubts he will win a second election.

Of course, America and Tunisia or Egypt are at a very great distance. However, the conclusion is very simple: If one does not make compromises, does not listen to public opinion and opposition, does not pay attention to protests and discontent, then neither the deserts of the past nor strong power will save regimes from falling. Politics is always the art of the possible. The Western democracies, based on compromise, are incomparably more stable and effective. They get into difficult situations only if the government tries to avoid compromises. Such things also happen. Here the checks-and-balances system gets involved, as well as competitive elections, which restore again the balance of power, making the government stable. You should know about it, if you are seriously interested in maintaining the stability and security of the country.

That is how I see it from Washington, D.C.