Edited by Amy Wong
Obama: Home Alone
Published in Financial Times Deutschland
(Germany) on 20 January 2010
by (link to original)
President Barack Obama’s policies took a big hit in the Massachusetts special election. That shows he now has to start dealing more with domestic politics.
One first has to try to comprehend it. The Democrats just lost a Senate seat to the Republicans in one of the most liberal states of the USA. John F. Kennedy once held that seat and later it went his brother Ted, the Lion of the Senate. It’s tantamount to the Christian Democrats carrying the Berlin-Kreuzberg precinct.* The Massachusetts defeat has somewhat tarnished Barack Obama’s sparkling halo. He is no longer the heroic figure able to convince people by his presence alone. That hurts his policy agenda, domestic as well as foreign.
Obama and the Democrats need only look to themselves for the reasons behind this debacle. They can’t just blame Martha Coakley for losing, regardless of her weakness as a candidate. The Democrats trusted the loyalty of Massachusetts Democrats to the point of carelessness. But the voters used the election to protest against Washington, against burgeoning debt piled up by the government and against the generous bonuses paid to bankers. People are mainly worried about the high unemployment rate, not about climate change or arms reduction talks with Russia.
They had Bill Clinton’s campaign warning, “It’s the economy, stupid.” A year ago, Obama’s slogan “Hope” was good enough. But no longer.
Now he even has to worry about his own Democrats in Congress. Congressional elections are set for next fall. More than one representative is considering whether it might be better to oppose their president rather than follow him.
For Obama, all this means he needs to reconsider his political tactics. He could concentrate on his political base to get his agenda through. He still has a majority in Congress, after all. That would mean an end to the friendly policy with which he wanted to be all-inclusive, not only with the Republicans and independents but also among America’s European allies and dictators in China and North Korea. He would be giving up everything he has built upon during his first year in office.
It’s more probable that Obama will take the Massachusetts election as a sign to become more centrist and make compromises with conservatives, even though that will further disappoint his base who had expected more from the “Yes, We Can” candidate. So far, he has tended to avoid conflict of any kind.
Health care reform will be further watered down and the unpopular banking industry will face special levies. Plans to limit carbon emissions or close Guantanamo will be put on the back burner. What counts now is the will of the people.
For the rest of the world, it means they will have to say farewell to the charismatic candidate they came to love and in whom they had placed so much hope. Obama will have to stay at home.
*Translator’s Note: The Kreuzberg district of Berlin is known for its radical counterculture and is the only part of Berlin represented in parliament by a member of the Green Party.
One first has to try to comprehend it. The Democrats just lost a Senate seat to the Republicans in one of the most liberal states of the USA. John F. Kennedy once held that seat and later it went his brother Ted, the Lion of the Senate. It’s tantamount to the Christian Democrats carrying the Berlin-Kreuzberg precinct.* The Massachusetts defeat has somewhat tarnished Barack Obama’s sparkling halo. He is no longer the heroic figure able to convince people by his presence alone. That hurts his policy agenda, domestic as well as foreign.
Obama and the Democrats need only look to themselves for the reasons behind this debacle. They can’t just blame Martha Coakley for losing, regardless of her weakness as a candidate. The Democrats trusted the loyalty of Massachusetts Democrats to the point of carelessness. But the voters used the election to protest against Washington, against burgeoning debt piled up by the government and against the generous bonuses paid to bankers. People are mainly worried about the high unemployment rate, not about climate change or arms reduction talks with Russia.
They had Bill Clinton’s campaign warning, “It’s the economy, stupid.” A year ago, Obama’s slogan “Hope” was good enough. But no longer.
Now he even has to worry about his own Democrats in Congress. Congressional elections are set for next fall. More than one representative is considering whether it might be better to oppose their president rather than follow him.
For Obama, all this means he needs to reconsider his political tactics. He could concentrate on his political base to get his agenda through. He still has a majority in Congress, after all. That would mean an end to the friendly policy with which he wanted to be all-inclusive, not only with the Republicans and independents but also among America’s European allies and dictators in China and North Korea. He would be giving up everything he has built upon during his first year in office.
It’s more probable that Obama will take the Massachusetts election as a sign to become more centrist and make compromises with conservatives, even though that will further disappoint his base who had expected more from the “Yes, We Can” candidate. So far, he has tended to avoid conflict of any kind.
Health care reform will be further watered down and the unpopular banking industry will face special levies. Plans to limit carbon emissions or close Guantanamo will be put on the back burner. What counts now is the will of the people.
For the rest of the world, it means they will have to say farewell to the charismatic candidate they came to love and in whom they had placed so much hope. Obama will have to stay at home.
*Translator’s Note: The Kreuzberg district of Berlin is known for its radical counterculture and is the only part of Berlin represented in parliament by a member of the Green Party.
Previous article![]( "Obama’s Fury on Banks is Just Politics")
Next article![]( "Betting on Death: The Banks’ Dangerous Gamble")
