The Obama Strategy
Published in El Universal
(Venezuela) on 11 August 2011
by Alfredo Toro Hardy (link to original)
The ceiling could have been raised by virtue of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.
The quarrel that accompanied the negotiation over raising the American public debt ceiling had two immediate effects. The first was to ensure that Standard and Poor’s made the unprecedented decision to lower the credit rating of the United States. According to the text that accompanied this action: “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed." The second effect was to pass on the greater part of the political cost of the confrontation to Congress and, in particular, to the Republicans. This became evident upon the release of a New York Times/CBS News Poll made public on Aug. 6. The poll also showed that 82 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress managed the issue and 72 percent disapprove of the way Republicans conducted themselves, while the leader of the House of Representatives, Republican John Boehner, found his rejection rating 16 points higher. Obama, on the other hand, seems not to have been affected, and maintains the same approval rating that he has had for the last year — 48 percent (a figure which rose with the death of bin Laden).
The lamentable spectacle for which the political class in Washington was responsible was, in fact, unnecessary, especially considering the correlation of the forces of Congress in the prevalent position of both the Republicans and the radicalism of the tea party — who reacted so predictably. It was unnecessary, since Obama had already had two opportunities to avoid this agonizing confrontation. Had Obama proposed raising the debt ceiling during the period between the Democratic breakdown in the House of Representatives in November 2010 and the taking over of the House by a Republican majority in January 2011, approval of the measure would have been straightforward. Yet, despite the fact that multiple voices suggested this, the president preferred to abstain, arguing that he believed in the Republicans’ spirit of compromise (of which, incidentally, there was no evidence). He also could have raised the debt ceiling unilaterally by virtue of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which indicates that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” This was the option recommended to him by his secretaries of the Treasury and State. But, again, he refused.
It would seem, then, that Obama was seeking the outcome that ensued. This made possible a repeat of the events of 1995 when, regarding this very same issue, the intransigence shown by the leader of the House, Newt Gingrich, and of the Republicans that dominated, provided support for the re-election of Clinton. And judging by the polls taken beforehand, something similar could take place with the elections next year. If this is the logic that has led Obama to allow the “cockerels” to massacre each other, while he stays out of the firing line, it would constitute an enormous lack of responsibility, not only toward the global economy but toward the leadership of his country.
The quarrel that accompanied the negotiation over raising the American public debt ceiling had two immediate effects. The first was to ensure that Standard and Poor’s made the unprecedented decision to lower the credit rating of the United States. According to the text that accompanied this action: “The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed." The second effect was to pass on the greater part of the political cost of the confrontation to Congress and, in particular, to the Republicans. This became evident upon the release of a New York Times/CBS News Poll made public on Aug. 6. The poll also showed that 82 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress managed the issue and 72 percent disapprove of the way Republicans conducted themselves, while the leader of the House of Representatives, Republican John Boehner, found his rejection rating 16 points higher. Obama, on the other hand, seems not to have been affected, and maintains the same approval rating that he has had for the last year — 48 percent (a figure which rose with the death of bin Laden).
The lamentable spectacle for which the political class in Washington was responsible was, in fact, unnecessary, especially considering the correlation of the forces of Congress in the prevalent position of both the Republicans and the radicalism of the tea party — who reacted so predictably. It was unnecessary, since Obama had already had two opportunities to avoid this agonizing confrontation. Had Obama proposed raising the debt ceiling during the period between the Democratic breakdown in the House of Representatives in November 2010 and the taking over of the House by a Republican majority in January 2011, approval of the measure would have been straightforward. Yet, despite the fact that multiple voices suggested this, the president preferred to abstain, arguing that he believed in the Republicans’ spirit of compromise (of which, incidentally, there was no evidence). He also could have raised the debt ceiling unilaterally by virtue of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which indicates that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” This was the option recommended to him by his secretaries of the Treasury and State. But, again, he refused.
It would seem, then, that Obama was seeking the outcome that ensued. This made possible a repeat of the events of 1995 when, regarding this very same issue, the intransigence shown by the leader of the House, Newt Gingrich, and of the Republicans that dominated, provided support for the re-election of Clinton. And judging by the polls taken beforehand, something similar could take place with the elections next year. If this is the logic that has led Obama to allow the “cockerels” to massacre each other, while he stays out of the firing line, it would constitute an enormous lack of responsibility, not only toward the global economy but toward the leadership of his country.