Are Obama’s Policies Dividing the United States?

With the approach of Nov. 6, the date for America’s presidential elections, the controversy surrounding President Obama’s performance in his first term is intensifying. Particularly given the accusations that his policies have divided Americans. Furthermore, some say his foreign policies have failed. These recent criticisms have led the same critics to ask: Will Obama repeat the failures of former President Jimmy Carter in facing Republican candidate Mitt Romney, whose star is rising fast despite his Mormon background?

How Have Obama’s Policies Divided Americans?

Through a careful reading of a number of opinion polls conducted by organizations known for their impartiality, one can conclude that Obama is the most polarizing president of the last 60 years.

Recently, The Washington Post turned its attention to this matter, going on to say that Obama is leading the country toward a collapse that has been developing for years. Are there statistics that prove this?

A recent Gallup poll agreed; the partisan divide surrounding Obama reached record heights for the third year in a row. In 2011, the gap between the percentage of Democrats who support him and the percentage of Republicans in opposition to him was at 68 points, the highest rate an American president has ever reached in his third year. Does that mean there’s a kind of paradox when it comes to Obama?

This is absolutely the case. Throughout the 2008 election campaign, the man seemed like an evangelist for bridging the party rift that afflicted the U.S. due to the policies of his Republican predecessor George W. Bush. Obama often boasted that he would make every effort to achieve a consensus of opinion.

However, it’s clear that the temptations of office and the arrogance of power have overcome his tolerant nature. He has not made much of an effort to bridge this party rift and reach consensus.

Has this division reached Congress?

Looking at the legislation that the Democrat Obama has succeeded in passing, we don’t find any noteworthy successes within the first two years after the election, which was the period when there was a Democratic majority. With the change of scene, demonstrated by the Republican’s seizure of the majority in the House of Representatives, the division has become clear. The Republicans have refused to pass legislation presented by Obama, and it seems the man, who once had the audacity to hope, has failed to fulfill the promises he made in the utopian speech he delivered after his election victory.

Given this, do Democratic congressmen appear resentful of Obama’s policies?

Many Democratic congressmen feel that no real change has taken place during Obama’s first term. Among them is Henry Waxman, the Democratic representative from California, who expressed intense frustration over Obama’s inability to settle party differences.

As for Republicans’ accusations in this context, they have spoken without hesitation. Mitt Romney, his fierce competitor, summarized some of the criticisms by stating that Obama has failed to cooperate with Republicans. Has Obama himself acknowledged this failure? What are the consequences?

In a recent television interview, Obama acknowledged that he has not made a tangible change in Congress, saying that he might not have the power to do so, and he may need a second term in order to create real change.

This was the acknowledgement. As for the political consequences, however, it’s become clear that many people in the street and voters see a president powerless to unify the two main parties in these critical times. One such negative example was the tension over the matter of military intervention in Libya.

Was former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski pointing to Obama in his book “Strategic Vision,” when he described the present state of America as a country with a “gridlocked governmental system incapable of enacting serious policy revisions,” a back-breaking military budget, and a failing “decade-long attempt to conquer Afghanistan”?*

American writer David Ignatius presents an answer in the affirmative, writing: “As for Obama’s strategic vision, he talks a better game than he plays. He understands that the U.S. economy needs rebuilding, but … he hasn’t enacted the strong policies that would deal with debt, decaying infrastructure and bad public education.” [http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/jan/27/candidates-must-move-beyond-slogans/]

Does this mean that the failures that plagued former Democratic President Carter will necessarily happen to Obama this November?

The cause for this concern was posed forcefully in the most recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine in a piece by Richard Williamson, which does not lack for precise analysis. Within the article he argues that elements of Obama’s foreign and military policies are unraveling. His argument leads to an acknowledgement that the America of Obama today is approaching the America of Carter in the early 1980s. Williamson's conclusion is that the last thing the U.S. of today needs is a leader like this.

Do we understand why Obama is accelerating the steps of his foreign policy, as demonstrated with his recent visit to Afghanistan?

There remains a certain truth, and this is that America’s mistakes abroad and at home may be more than Obama the individual was capable of fixing in his first term. So, there may still be a second window of opportunity open to him for success in a second term.

*Editor’s Note: In the original source, Brzezinski is describing the former Soviet Union, and drawing a comparison between America today and the Soviet Union just prior to its fall.