A Serious Warning for Obama

The whims of the calendar have made the first anniversary of Barack Obama’s presidency coincide with a significant defeat — the loss by the Democrats in the state of Massachusetts, a constituency that they dominated for half a century. The loss of the seat that the deceased Ted Kennedy left vacant leaves Obama without the super majority in the Senate. Without a doubt, this is a pessimistic signal for the legislative elections of next November, in which the Democratic president is very weak.

It is impossible to explain how the dizzying loss of affection on Obama’s part was possible without mentioning the key aspects of his politics: his option for a pacifying message in foreign affairs and his determination to carry out health care reform. Many of the Independent voters who supported him in November 2008 have started to abandon him, fearful of a program that moves North American standards to leftist radicalism. The hand extended to those who see it stained with blood has not served to eliminate the threat that free societies face, and the European-style project of Social Security is not as popular in the U.S. as we imagine from this side of the Atlantic. Many leaders like Obama — and Zapatero has shared the sentiment many times — think that good intentions are enough to change reality, when the opposite happens nearly every time.

Although he lost a seat, Obama maintains the majority in the Senate, but he must negotiate the foreseen changes in his program with the Republicans. The North American system is full of means to impede people from monopolizing power, despite clear majorities in Congress. For some, this distribution means that the system is blocked; for others, it simply means that there are mechanisms that protect it from ventures that do not have indisputable support. Until now, Obama has been able to work with secondary support by the Republicans. If he does not want to be defeated in November, he should begin to negotiate for real.