Obama’s Conflicting Strengths and Weaknesses
Published in Al-Ahram
(Egypt) on 12 May 2010
by Aatif Al-Omri (link to original)
Obama Between His Strengths and Weaknesses
President Obama, especially in his position at the helm of government and politics, is faced with two contradictory positions: one of strength and one of weakness. This contradiction influences his political decisions and power.
1. The majority that voted for Obama did not put him in competition with a rival candidate belonging to the opposing party. Former President Bill Clinton, when asked how Obama defeated his wife Hillary, recognized this. He answered, it was because she was not in a race against a rival candidate, but rather a social movement. Then, those who chose him gave him the mandate to change and not continue on the path of traditional decision-making for the management of foreign policy.
2. This social movement, which carried Obama to the White House, was established on principles and foundations that emerged three years before the appearance of the Obama phenomenon. It started with some of the large foreign policy foundations, institutes, and think tanks. Their vision was solidified in documents published around the world, which reflected a wide margin of public opinion. That public opinion was not only fed up with the policies of George Bush and his team, but also with something even more disturbing: the decline in the prestige, influence, and fear of the United States around the world. These trends were confirmed by the phenomenon—monitored by U.S. and European polling centers—of ‘Anti-Americanism,’ considered similar to threats to American national security.
3. Obama came from outside the traditional, historically empowered organizations, which are known to recommend candidates for the presidency so any result will benefit them, and any winner will be a ‘son’ of the establishment. In this allegory, the influential organizations consider themselves to be the guardians of traditional and conservative American values that had been implanted by the founding fathers of the United States. Then came Obama, free from the ‘establishment’ and inclined towards different and more advanced ideas.
On the other hand, there is weakness.
1. He is an example of the exception to the rule of choosing stable presidents, in that he is targeted by conservative power brokers and especially many in the Republican Party. They are the ones who refuse Obama’s ideas and politics and even his presence in the White House. This is a strong force rooted in the heart of American politics, economics, culture and media, which has organizations and centers to actively promote these ideas.
2. Some of the influential leaders in the Democratic Party remained ambivalent to the idea of supporting Obama as the party’s candidate until the last minute when the ball was in the court of around 800 party leaders, the so-called ‘superdelegates.’ They resolved their position when they found that the social movement was like a wave carrying Obama, not Hillary. If these delegates sided with her it would mean a better chance for the Republican candidate John McCain, depriving the Democratic Party of a White House win.
3. Like all other presidents, Obama has his eyes set on winning a second term. Because of the ongoing interplay between what is in his interest and what is against his values, as well as his waning approval ratings, the courage he had in the beginning now seems to be curbed and his decisions are hesitant.
One cannot ignore the role of the desire of any president for a second term and how it effects his decisions on foreign policy.
In 2000, a professor of political science at Princeton, David Greenstein*, published a book called “The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style From Roosevelt to Clinton.” The book discusses the foreign policy decisions presidents make for their own self-interest, which forces them to take into account the demands of the strong and the groups able to help them win elections. The book claims that only three of the eleven presidents included in the study succeeded in freeing their will as presidents from the control of their personal feelings. They are Eisenhower, Ford, and George W. Bush.
These three all issued warnings to Israel of possible punishment when Israel challenged their will and refused demands that they considered to be in the interest of American national security. However, I add, this is what I witnessed during my work in Washington; Clinton tried to force Israel to obey and accept a final peace agreement. However, they [Republicans] weaved the ‘Monica’ conspiracy, which clouded his thinking and crippled his ability to make foreign policy decisions.
This is the map that Obama finds himself in the middle of, surrounded by some who are with him and some who are against him. All of these things are interacting.
There still remains an important element, which is the United States’ special relationship with Israel. Israel on the other hand, is not a passive party. In reality, it gathers all of its strong, influential powers within the American arena to support Obama’s opposition. If there were a well-organized, deliberate, and serious Arab movement within this open arena, maybe this would have positively affected the Arab position. I can only say if…
*Translator’s Note: Article states the name as David Greenstein, but his name is Fred Greenstein.
President Obama, especially in his position at the helm of government and politics, is faced with two contradictory positions: one of strength and one of weakness. This contradiction influences his political decisions and power.
1. The majority that voted for Obama did not put him in competition with a rival candidate belonging to the opposing party. Former President Bill Clinton, when asked how Obama defeated his wife Hillary, recognized this. He answered, it was because she was not in a race against a rival candidate, but rather a social movement. Then, those who chose him gave him the mandate to change and not continue on the path of traditional decision-making for the management of foreign policy.
2. This social movement, which carried Obama to the White House, was established on principles and foundations that emerged three years before the appearance of the Obama phenomenon. It started with some of the large foreign policy foundations, institutes, and think tanks. Their vision was solidified in documents published around the world, which reflected a wide margin of public opinion. That public opinion was not only fed up with the policies of George Bush and his team, but also with something even more disturbing: the decline in the prestige, influence, and fear of the United States around the world. These trends were confirmed by the phenomenon—monitored by U.S. and European polling centers—of ‘Anti-Americanism,’ considered similar to threats to American national security.
3. Obama came from outside the traditional, historically empowered organizations, which are known to recommend candidates for the presidency so any result will benefit them, and any winner will be a ‘son’ of the establishment. In this allegory, the influential organizations consider themselves to be the guardians of traditional and conservative American values that had been implanted by the founding fathers of the United States. Then came Obama, free from the ‘establishment’ and inclined towards different and more advanced ideas.
On the other hand, there is weakness.
1. He is an example of the exception to the rule of choosing stable presidents, in that he is targeted by conservative power brokers and especially many in the Republican Party. They are the ones who refuse Obama’s ideas and politics and even his presence in the White House. This is a strong force rooted in the heart of American politics, economics, culture and media, which has organizations and centers to actively promote these ideas.
2. Some of the influential leaders in the Democratic Party remained ambivalent to the idea of supporting Obama as the party’s candidate until the last minute when the ball was in the court of around 800 party leaders, the so-called ‘superdelegates.’ They resolved their position when they found that the social movement was like a wave carrying Obama, not Hillary. If these delegates sided with her it would mean a better chance for the Republican candidate John McCain, depriving the Democratic Party of a White House win.
3. Like all other presidents, Obama has his eyes set on winning a second term. Because of the ongoing interplay between what is in his interest and what is against his values, as well as his waning approval ratings, the courage he had in the beginning now seems to be curbed and his decisions are hesitant.
One cannot ignore the role of the desire of any president for a second term and how it effects his decisions on foreign policy.
In 2000, a professor of political science at Princeton, David Greenstein*, published a book called “The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style From Roosevelt to Clinton.” The book discusses the foreign policy decisions presidents make for their own self-interest, which forces them to take into account the demands of the strong and the groups able to help them win elections. The book claims that only three of the eleven presidents included in the study succeeded in freeing their will as presidents from the control of their personal feelings. They are Eisenhower, Ford, and George W. Bush.
These three all issued warnings to Israel of possible punishment when Israel challenged their will and refused demands that they considered to be in the interest of American national security. However, I add, this is what I witnessed during my work in Washington; Clinton tried to force Israel to obey and accept a final peace agreement. However, they [Republicans] weaved the ‘Monica’ conspiracy, which clouded his thinking and crippled his ability to make foreign policy decisions.
This is the map that Obama finds himself in the middle of, surrounded by some who are with him and some who are against him. All of these things are interacting.
There still remains an important element, which is the United States’ special relationship with Israel. Israel on the other hand, is not a passive party. In reality, it gathers all of its strong, influential powers within the American arena to support Obama’s opposition. If there were a well-organized, deliberate, and serious Arab movement within this open arena, maybe this would have positively affected the Arab position. I can only say if…
*Translator’s Note: Article states the name as David Greenstein, but his name is Fred Greenstein.